NationStates Jolt Archive

This was a discussion briefly started in another thread, and I wanted to take it here to give the full discussion it deserves.

For the purposes of this, let us take a few things as fact:

1) the highest legal authority in the nation is the United States Supreme Court

2) It is the job of the Supreme Court to (among other things) interpret the constitution

3) The decisions of the Supreme Court can not be overrulled nor appealed to a higher authority, they are the final arbiter

4) The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, no legal authority supercedes nor overwrites the Constitution

5) Because the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, their decisions are, in effect, what the Constitution says, and thus also the Supreme Law of the Land, and can not be counters or nullified, save by constitutional amendment.

Now, that being said, the question is can the Supreme Court be wrong? Now, I mean, obviously they can INTERPRET the constitution incorrectly, they can make a mistake and say something which is, in fact, untrue. But if under law, the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, and what the Supreme Court says becomes law, can they, as a legal matter, be wrong?

For example, many have said Roe was decided wrongly (I will not mention my own opinion here). But if the Supreme Court decides Roe, and what the Supreme Court says the constitution is, becomes in effect, what the constitution is, then can Roe be a "wrong" decision? If, under law, the constitution is what they say it is, then by definition, isn't whatever they say it is correct?

Is saying the supreme court did something wrong like saying I gave my child the wrong name? Isn't that child's name whatever I give it, and by definition it can not be "wrong" since it is my choice?

Discuss.

I think we should be asking, can the constitution be wrong?

This was a discussion briefly started in another thread, and I wanted to take it here to give the full discussion it deserves.

For the purposes of this, let us take a few things as fact:

1) the highest legal authority in the nation is the United States Supreme Court

Ohhhh.

I thought, this being a UK forum, that you meant the UK Supreme Court.

I was mildly puzzled as the UK Supreme Court hasn't come into existence quite yet.

Next time do try to clarify.

Next time do try to clarify.
Isn't that what the third sentence does?

Isn't that what the third sentence does?

Yes, it did eventually.

Maybe I should have said "do try to clarify in the title".

Ohhhh.

I thought, this being a UK forum, that you meant the UK Supreme Court.

I was mildly puzzled as the UK Supreme Court hasn't come into existence quite yet.

Next time do try to clarify.
How cute. I wish I could have thought of a clever remark like that.

The USSC can certainly be wrong. Two words -- Dredd Scott. A different two words -- Eminent Domain

Now, that being said, the question is can the Supreme Court be wrong?

Yes, but they'd never admit it. It's more a reaction of taking the ball and going home in a huff.

Even IF the Supreme Court is "wrong," they're still "right" in terms of America. Only the people themselves can overrule the Court and so far there have been very, very few times when they have decided to do so.

Part of the problem here is who is definining "wrong," and when. Dredd Scott was "wrong" in modern terms, but "right" when it was decided. What we're really discussing here is "current morality," a very evanescent concept.

Yes, it did eventually.

Maybe I should have said "do try to clarify in the title".
Maybe the fact that, as you say, we don't have a supreme court should have be a giveaway.

Maybe the fact that, as you say, we don't have a supreme court should have be a giveaway.

Oh, we do, but the institution hasn't met for the first time or been constituted.

Only if the Supreme Court says so.

Even IF the Supreme Court is "wrong," they're still "right" in terms of America. Only the people themselves can overrule the Court and so far there have been very, very few times when they have decided to do so.

Part of the problem here is who is definining "wrong," and when. Dredd Scott was "wrong" in modern terms, but "right" when it was decided. What we're really discussing here is "current morality," a very evanescent concept.
I don't know about that Dredd Scott thing, pal. It sure pissed off a lot of abolitionists when it was announced that slaves weren't men in the sense that they were endowed with the same unalienable rights as the rest. Anyway, it's the best example I can think of where the USSC made a wrong decision.

How cute. I wish I could have thought of a clever remark like that.

The USSC can certainly be wrong. Two words -- Dredd Scott. A different two words -- Eminent Domain

Ah, but here we have the problem. in Dredd Scott and Kelo v. New London (the eminent domain case I believe you are refering to), it was the job of the supreme court to interpret the constitution.

The supreme court said "this is what the constitution says." And under law, what the supreme court says the constitution says is, as a matter of law, what it says. And that decision can not be appealed or taken to higher authority.

So if by law, the constitution says what they say it says, then isn't whatever they say, under law, correct?

Only if they rule in opposition to the neocon opinion, duh, don't you keep up with the news?

Of course the SCOTUS can be wrong. Only God is infallible.

Of course the SCOTUS can be wrong. Only God is infallible.

I think the question is not being seen though. If the constitution is, by definition, what they say it is, then isn't whatever decision they make, by likewise definition, the correct one?

Ah, but here we have the problem. in Dredd Scott and Kelo v. New London (the eminent domain case I believe you are refering to), it was the job of the supreme court to interpret the constitution.

The supreme court said "this is what the constitution says." And under law, what the supreme court says the constitution says is, as a matter of law, what it says. And that decision can not be appealed or taken to higher authority.

So if by law, the constitution says what they say it says, then isn't whatever they say, under law, correct?
It's law, that's something I'll agree with. But the fact that it's law doesn't mean it's a correct decision. Unless you want to arbitrarily define USSC decisions as correct, they are all made by men. As such, they are subject to the predjudices of the times they live in. Does that make Negroes any less "equal" than Caucasians? Of course not. That's why the decision was wrong. In fact, one subsequent Chief Justice wrote that the decision was a self-inflicted wound that took the court a generation from which to recover.

It's law, that's something I'll agree with. But the fact that it's law doesn't mean it's a correct decision. Unless you want to arbitrarily define USSC decisions as correct, they are all made by men. As such, they are subject to the predjudices of the times they live in. Does that make Negroes any less "equal" than Caucasians? Of course not. That's why the decision was wrong. In fact, one subsequent Chief Justice wrote that the decision was a self-inflicted wound that took the court a generation from which to recover.

Here's my point though. The supreme court declares "the constitution says X".

Now if whatever the supreme court says is true as a matter of law, then isn't it true that the constitution says X?

In other words, if the supreme court believes the constitution says something, does that make it true as a matter of fact for the pure reasons that the supreme court says it does?

Let me put it another way. You say Dredd Scott was wrong. What you mean then is that the constitution did not say what the court believed it said, right?

However, can it ever be the case that the Court is wrong, and the Constitution does NOT say what they believe it says if, by very definition, the Constitution says what they say it says?

Let me put it another way. You say Dredd Scott was wrong. What you mean then is that the constitution did not say what the court believed it said, right?

However, can it ever be the case that the Court is wrong, and the Constitution does NOT say what they believe it says if, by very definition, the Constitution says what they say it says?
You have taken the choice that I gave you to arbitrarily define all USSC decisions as correct. I can't argue against a definition like that. All I can do is point out that every court in every country is required to interpret law. Mostly it's easy. Sometimes it's not. An interpretation that a court has made on the law is always subject to error. That's why decisions are overturned. USSC decisions can't be overturned, but they can be reversed. And they have been reversed. That, in itself, means that at least one of the two decisions was wrong.

The USSC can be wrong. But the only body which can say so is the USSC, in review of it's works later.

However, until or unless they make that decision, what they state as the interpretation of the constitution, is the only legal interpretation.

So, while they can be wrong in point of fact, they can never be wrong du jure.

The Supreme Court can be wrong, but never at the present time, only in the past.

Only God is infallible.

"The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the Earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the Earth- men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air- for I am grieved that I have made them."
..........Genesis 6:6-7

Nothing is infallible.


The Supreme Court can be wrong, but never at the present time, only in the past.
What I would've said.

The USSC can certainly be wrong. Two words -- Dredd Scott. A different two words -- Eminent Domain
Or how about these two: George Dubya. That's one hell of a mistake right there.

Also, I think it's supposed to be SCOTUS, technically speaking (Supreme Court of the United States). Plus it sounds cool. "The SCOTUS says..."

Or how about these two: George Dubya. That's one hell of a mistake right there.

Also, I think it's supposed to be SCOTUS, technically speaking (Supreme Court of the United States). Plus it sounds cool. "The SCOTUS says..."

Actually it can be either. SCOTUS is sort of a short hand, while USSC is actually a technical legal definition, some court reporters are abbreviated as "USSC" reporters.

Or how about these two: George Dubya. That's one hell of a mistake right there.

Also, I think it's supposed to be SCOTUS, technically speaking (Supreme Court of the United States). Plus it sounds cool. "The SCOTUS says..."
And there were some that revived the phrase used to describe the Dredd Scott decision. That this was a self-inflicted wound that would take the court a generation to recover from.

I like USSC because it types easier. I don't have to rearrange my finger on the shift key, as I do when I type SCOTUS.

But if by definition the constitution says what SCOTUS believes it says, then doesn't that makes SCOTUS' beliefs true in both law and fact?

lets assume the supreme court is always right.
if you look at certain cases you can find ones in wich the court as changed sides on an issue.
In other words the supreme court siad the supreme court was wrong. Since they must be right then they are correct in establishing that they were wrong. So the supreme court can be wrong becuase they themselves said so.
by the way your premise is wrong, read the constitution again, specifically the section on checks and balances. you will see the court is not the final arbiter in all things.

The framers of the Constitution knew they hadn't written a perfect document. Thus the Constitution, and by extension, the Supreme Court, can be wrong.

Here's my point though. The supreme court declares "the constitution says X".

Now if whatever the supreme court says is true as a matter of law, then isn't it true that the constitution says X?

In other words, if the supreme court believes the constitution says something, does that make it true as a matter of fact for the pure reasons that the supreme court says it does?

I don't think so. Even when it makes a descision there are many times dissenting descisions, which can be sited in future courts as a legal means to overturn a previous ruling. Furthermore, congress does have powers to limit what things the court can rule on. Sometimes the court can be just flat out wrong, and go over its judicial authority. Current political in US basically does make Supreme Courts final say the last word. In the past though, Congress and the President have cited their auhtority, and told the court it had no right or authority to enforce its descision, thus the courts ruling wasn't the final word. And lastly, future courts can always go back and change previous rulings, in which case dissenting opinions on past rulings can come into play.

read the constitution again, specifically the section on checks and balances. you will see the court is not the final arbiter in all things.


"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution"

SCOTUS is the final arbiter in interpreting the constitution. Its decisions can not be overruled or overturned by any other governmental branch.

I think the question is not being seen though. If the constitution is, by definition, what they say it is, then isn't whatever decision they make, by likewise definition, the correct one?
It is the legal decision, for a while at least. When a new generation of judges with new interpretations come in they may change it.

"The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the Earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the Earth- men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air- for I am grieved that I have made them."
..........Genesis 6:6-7

Nothing is infallible.
But He's never going to do that again, so He learned from His mistakes so as to make no more.

congress does have powers to limit what things the court can rule on.

No they can't. The powers of the Supreme Court are outlined in the Constitution. Congress can believe they have overstepped their constitutionally enumerated powers as Congress interprets it, but congress CAN NOT change or limit the powers of the courts. Only a constitutional amendment can do that.

But He's never going to do that again, so He learned from His mistakes so as to make no more.

But, if you follow Christianity's beliefs then that God does make errors:

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." — Douglas Adams


Oh, Douglas Adams.

This is why in the past there was an effort to nominate someone that was at least a little moderate. This is why the battles against those nominated from the reactionary right have been so bitter. It's also why there has been an effort to nominate young judges so they will be around for 40-50 years. In the past old judges were nominated so everyone knew they had the knowledge and ability. But they would only last maybe 20 years. There is a deep fear among the right that they will lose power so they want to lock up the court for a couple generations.

To answer what I think your question is: no.



A S.C. decision is always by definition "legally right."

Ohhhh.

I thought, this being a UK forum, that you meant the UK Supreme Court.

I was mildly puzzled as the UK Supreme Court hasn't come into existence quite yet.

Next time do try to clarify.


What in god's name would possess you to post spam like this?

Of course they can be wrong, but they are certainly more likely to be right more of the time than a bunch of legislatures who are mere slaves to a people that spend their Sundays at church and the rest of their free time at Wal Mart.

Or how about these two: George Dubya. That's one hell of a mistake right there.

Also, I think it's supposed to be SCOTUS, technically speaking (Supreme Court of the United States). Plus it sounds cool. "The SCOTUS says..."

Like scrotum.

It's kind of like papal infallibility to the Catholic Church, really. Kinda.

This is one of those double-think issues guys. Use 1984 to your advantage. The Court is always right. The Court can be wrong. Both statements are true at the same time even though they contradict each other.

It's like... the Pope is infallible, but the Pope can be wrong.

Only if you believe there is such a thing as a right or wrong.

This was a discussion briefly started in another thread, and I wanted to take it here to give the full discussion it deserves.

For the purposes of this, let us take a few things as fact:

1) the highest legal authority in the nation is the United States Supreme Court

2) It is the job of the Supreme Court to (among other things) interpret the constitution

3) The decisions of the Supreme Court can not be overrulled nor appealed to a higher authority, they are the final arbiter

4) The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, no legal authority supercedes nor overwrites the Constitution

5) Because the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, their decisions are, in effect, what the Constitution says, and thus also the Supreme Law of the Land, and can not be counters or nullified, save by constitutional amendment.

Now, that being said, the question is can the Supreme Court be wrong? Now, I mean, obviously they can INTERPRET the constitution incorrectly, they can make a mistake and say something which is, in fact, untrue. But if under law, the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, and what the Supreme Court says becomes law, can they, as a legal matter, be wrong?

For example, many have said Roe was decided wrongly (I will not mention my own opinion here). But if the Supreme Court decides Roe, and what the Supreme Court says the constitution is, becomes in effect, what the constitution is, then can Roe be a "wrong" decision? If, under law, the constitution is what they say it is, then by definition, isn't whatever they say it is correct?

Is saying the supreme court did something wrong like saying I gave my child the wrong name? Isn't that child's name whatever I give it, and by definition it can not be "wrong" since it is my choice?

Discuss.


A supreme court justice can be impeached. If Congress believes strongly enough that a decision was sufficiently contrary to the constitution as to consitute corruption or abuse of office they can act to remove a Justice. Of course, that would require Congress getting it's head out of it's ass and acting with some direction. The closest they've come in recent years was this one, and the only thing they've had much success at doing is nothing.

But He's never going to do that again, so He learned from His mistakes so as to make no more.

God defined by Christianity cannot make mistakes. Therefore, if it makes mistakes, it isn't God. [/hijack]

New Domici, the congress IS the ass the rest of the government's head is in.

This was a discussion briefly started in another thread, and I wanted to take it here to give the full discussion it deserves.

For the purposes of this, let us take a few things as fact:

1) the highest legal authority in the nation is the United States Supreme Court

2) It is the job of the Supreme Court to (among other things) interpret the constitution

3) The decisions of the Supreme Court can not be overrulled nor appealed to a higher authority, they are the final arbiter

4) The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, no legal authority supercedes nor overwrites the Constitution

5) Because the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, their decisions are, in effect, what the Constitution says, and thus also the Supreme Law of the Land, and can not be counters or nullified, save by constitutional amendment.

Now, that being said, the question is can the Supreme Court be wrong? Now, I mean, obviously they can INTERPRET the constitution incorrectly, they can make a mistake and say something which is, in fact, untrue. But if under law, the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, and what the Supreme Court says becomes law, can they, as a legal matter, be wrong?

For example, many have said Roe was decided wrongly (I will not mention my own opinion here). But if the Supreme Court decides Roe, and what the Supreme Court says the constitution is, becomes in effect, what the constitution is, then can Roe be a "wrong" decision? If, under law, the constitution is what they say it is, then by definition, isn't whatever they say it is correct?

Is saying the supreme court did something wrong like saying I gave my child the wrong name? Isn't that child's name whatever I give it, and by definition it can not be "wrong" since it is my choice?

Discuss.


The Supreme Court should not (thought it does) interpret the Constitution, it is supposed to interpret laws in light of the Constitution! That's the problem, it's changing the meaning of the Constitution because it's misread it's own function. Cases are brought before them so that they can determine if the law is Constitutional, not so they can interpret the Constitution to support a law. Once they get back to interpreting law and not the Constitution, we'll be better off!

The Supreme Court should not (thought it does) interpret the Constitution, it is supposed to interpret laws in light of the Constitution! That's the problem, it's changing the meaning of the Constitution because it's misread it's own function. Cases are brought before them so that they can determine if the law is Constitutional, not so they can interpret the Constitution to support a law. Once they get back to interpreting law and not the Constitution, we'll be better off!
The Supreme Court does exactly what you say it should: it does interpret laws in light of the Constitution. When it overturns such a law based on its unconstitutionality, it sets a precedent for future laws. The practice of judicial review and the overturning of laws based on their validity in light of the Constitution inevitably brings about the "supporting of laws", as you put it. If the court determines that laws prohibiting access to lawyers are unconstitutional, then of course future laws will have to respect that ruling accordingly by allowing access to lawyers.

What I think you were getting at is that the Supreme Court has, in the past, interpreted laws in order to set judicial precedent for a type of law that they apparently wish to see legislated; some might hold up Roe v. Wade and abortion rights as an example of this. That would of course deal with "judicial activism" and incorrect decision-making with respect to the Constitution. However, the fact is that creating precedent for future law is an inherent part of the Supreme Court's role in the country; whether or not you with agree with the Court's decision in setting such precedent is another matter.

The Supreme Court should not (thought it does) interpret the Constitution, it is supposed to interpret laws in light of the Constitution! That's the problem, it's changing the meaning of the Constitution because it's misread it's own function. Cases are brought before them so that they can determine if the law is Constitutional, not so they can interpret the Constitution to support a law. Once they get back to interpreting law and not the Constitution, we'll be better off!


You have things pretty much backwards.

What the supreme court does do is interpret laws in light of the constitution.

The tricky part comes with the fact that there is not an answer to every conceivable law written into the constitution directly, so the justices of the SC are tasked with deciding on laws which are not addressed directly in the constitution but deal with things addressed indirectly.

Lets take one of the most important clauses - due process.

The constitution doesn't spell out precisely which "due process" we are entitled to, so it is up to the court to decide and interpret what the guarantee entails.

The SC has never digressed from "interpreting law."

We all know that Samuel Alito is God, so therefore he cannot be wrong.

Of fucking course the Supreme Court can be wrong. They are perfectly capable of making a bullshit ruling that goes against the Constitution. It's not likely, but it's possible.

I think the question is not being seen though. If the constitution is, by definition, what they say it is, then isn't whatever decision they make, by likewise definition, the correct one?

No. For example, the law says that I'm not allowed to smoke weed. I don't think smoking weed is wrong. I smoke weed anyway, and I know I have the right to smoke weed if I want to, because I don't think it's wrong. If they think it's wrong, and try to say something to me about it, they can shove their interpretations up their ass. Point being, it's all up to interpretation, by the people, as individuals. There's always laws that somebody will disagree with, therefor, from their standpoint, it is wrong. Nothing makes the Supreme Court more right than any other person. I don't really give a shit about the law actually, I just do what I want to do, because I hardly ever do things that I feel are wrong in my heart. If I don't feel its wrong, I don't what anybody else thinks. This of course, does not imply to things that can be dirrived out of cold hard logic, such as mathematics... 2+2=4. If I think 2+2=5, that doesn't make it right, however, law is almost always based on emotions and interpretable bullshit like that, so I basically throw it out the window and try to live a good happy life. In the end, it doesn't really matter weather they're right or wrong, except when they try to impose a punishment on you. I say, if you feel what you did was not wrong, and they impose a punishment on you anyway, you have every right to take any measures necessary not to comply.

I say, if you feel what you did was not wrong, and they impose a punishment on you anyway, you have every right to take any measures necessary not to comply.Good idea. I feel the urge to murder children because they deserve it. Since I don't feel that this is wrong, I am within my rights to object to the justice system trying to stop me.

If the Supreme Court is logically incorrect, it is still legally correct.

At times you still ignore it for moral reasons.

Ask Thoreau.

This was a discussion briefly started in another thread, and I wanted to take it here to give the full discussion it deserves.

For the purposes of this, let us take a few things as fact:

1) the highest legal authority in the nation is the United States Supreme Court

2) It is the job of the Supreme Court to (among other things) interpret the constitution

3) The decisions of the Supreme Court can not be overrulled nor appealed to a higher authority, they are the final arbiter

4) The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, no legal authority supercedes nor overwrites the Constitution

5) Because the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, their decisions are, in effect, what the Constitution says, and thus also the Supreme Law of the Land, and can not be counters or nullified, save by constitutional amendment.

Now, that being said, the question is can the Supreme Court be wrong? Now, I mean, obviously they can INTERPRET the constitution incorrectly, they can make a mistake and say something which is, in fact, untrue. But if under law, the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, and what the Supreme Court says becomes law, can they, as a legal matter, be wrong?

For example, many have said Roe was decided wrongly (I will not mention my own opinion here). But if the Supreme Court decides Roe, and what the Supreme Court says the constitution is, becomes in effect, what the constitution is, then can Roe be a "wrong" decision? If, under law, the constitution is what they say it is, then by definition, isn't whatever they say it is correct?

Is saying the supreme court did something wrong like saying I gave my child the wrong name? Isn't that child's name whatever I give it, and by definition it can not be "wrong" since it is my choice?

Discuss.


Of course they can be wrong. They have been before, even if you agree with Roe V. Wade.
But fortunately, most of these wrongnesses have been correcte3d.

Now we need to strip the FCC of it's power; something it owes to the Frakkin' Supreme Court.

(( *looks at the word Frakkin' and wonders if Eutrusca is channeling his spirit*))

It's law, that's something I'll agree with. But the fact that it's law doesn't mean it's a correct decision. Unless you want to arbitrarily define USSC decisions as correct, they are all made by men. As such, they are subject to the predjudices of the times they live in. Does that make Negroes any less "equal" than Caucasians? Of course not. That's why the decision was wrong. In fact, one subsequent Chief Justice wrote that the decision was a self-inflicted wound that took the court a generation from which to recover.

In terms of the Constitution itself at the time the case was decided, the Dredd Scott case WAS decided correctly. Morally we see this as repugnant, but they were interpreting the law as it stood.

However, as obviously the people felt that it was a morally reprehensible situation, we amended the Constitution in order to declare that indeed, African Americans are fully human beings, citizens, and worthy of equal rights, thereby correcting the previous moral injustice.

But He's never going to do that again, so He learned from His mistakes so as to make no more.

Which does not change the definition of infallible. Just meant he was a quick study. [/devil's advocate]

Good idea. I feel the urge to murder children because they deserve it. Since I don't feel that this is wrong, I am within my rights to object to the justice system trying to stop me.

yes, indeed

However, if someone feels you are wrong, as a majority seems to feel, they have the right to try to stop you and have the right, and have used this right, to put sanctions on it.

Also, I usualy say at such a point "your freedom ends where that of another begins", in particular, the freedom of a child to live conflicts with your freedom to kill it. The majority decided you have less right to exercise your murdering freedom, and others have more right to exercise their freedom to live. You are still free to murder someone if you want to, and some people do. In such cases, you are also free to take the consequences

It is the majority that makes the law, and justice is what the majority says it is. Harsh but true

Good idea. I feel the urge to murder children because they deserve it. Since I don't feel that this is wrong, I am within my rights to object to the justice system trying to stop me.

Except how many people really feel that? Close to zero. Besides, no doesn't murder children because it's against the law. Nobody doesn't murder children because it's against the law, because murdering children is just one of those things you do regardless, the laws just a loose guideline, you would do it anyway.

I think we should be asking, can the constitution be wrong?


Damn straight it can. Think: Constitutions (and not just in the case of the US) were made hundreds of years to decades ago. Mnay of their clauses do not reflect society. While admendments can be made and clauses struck off, the constitution can be very wrong.

Damn straight it can. Think: Constitutions (and not just in the case of the US) were made hundreds of years to decades ago. Mnay of their clauses do not reflect society. While admendments can be made and clauses struck off, the constitution can be very wrong.


not to mention, constitutions are made and interpreted by humans. Anyone here who thinks humans don't make mistakes? anyone seriously?

yes, indeed

However, if someone feels you are wrong, as a majority seems to feel, they have the right to try to stop you and have the right, and have used this right, to put sanctions on it.

Also, I usualy say at such a point "your freedom ends where that of another begins", in particular, the freedom of a child to live conflicts with your freedom to kill it. The majority decided you have less right to exercise your murdering freedom, and others have more right to exercise their freedom to live. You are still free to murder someone if you want to. In such cases, you are also free to take the consequences

It is the majority that makes the law, and justice is what the majority says it is. Harsh but true

Yes, I believe in this to an extent. The line becomes very blurry though, and thats where I get a problem with it. People think that I'm infringeing on their rights by doing whatever in my own personal time. Like say, I want to marry a guy (I'm not gay, it's just an example), there are people that could twist it to look like I was infringing on their rights to a peaceful life or whatever by marrying a guy, and thats against their religion, so thats wrong, so on and so forth. Besides, I guess there's a place for everyone, if I can not life my life by the law, and still not get in too much trouble, hell, I'm happy. I tend to think that most people are good at heart though, and that if they're going to commit serious violent crimes like murder and rape, etc, they will do it anyway. That is no reason not to punish them for it, I still believe we should just take off their heads, but thats me. Too grey.

I just tend to think that as long as I'm not hurting anyone else, I should be the one telling myself how to run my life. Laws have a place, but it really is the citizen's choice as to weather they abide and for what reasons they do is the point I was trying to make.

The Supreme Court can be wrong. That is why it has the ability to overturn itself, and Congress has the ability to change the Constitution, so as to make it possible to pass laws that the court would declare unconstitutional.

Plessy v. Ferguson and the Dredd Scott Case are both classic examples of where the Supreme Court screwed up big time.

Except how many people really feel that? Close to zero. Besides, no doesn't murder children because it's against the law. Nobody doesn't murder children because it's against the law, because murdering children is just one of those things you do regardless, the laws just a loose guideline, you would do it anyway.


Since the Law is only a loose guideline, this topic should not matter to you one way or the other.

*losely re-interprets the Law when it comes to your civil Rights*
My bad - they're just guidelines anyway.

This was a discussion briefly started in another thread, and I wanted to take it here to give the full discussion it deserves.

For the purposes of this, let us take a few things as fact:

1) the highest legal authority in the nation is the United States Supreme Court

2) It is the job of the Supreme Court to (among other things) interpret the constitution

3) The decisions of the Supreme Court can not be overrulled nor appealed to a higher authority, they are the final arbiter

4) The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, no legal authority supercedes nor overwrites the Constitution

5) Because the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, their decisions are, in effect, what the Constitution says, and thus also the Supreme Law of the Land, and can not be counters or nullified, save by constitutional amendment.

Now, that being said, the question is can the Supreme Court be wrong? Now, I mean, obviously they can INTERPRET the constitution incorrectly, they can make a mistake and say something which is, in fact, untrue. But if under law, the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, and what the Supreme Court says becomes law, can they, as a legal matter, be wrong?

For example, many have said Roe was decided wrongly (I will not mention my own opinion here). But if the Supreme Court decides Roe, and what the Supreme Court says the constitution is, becomes in effect, what the constitution is, then can Roe be a "wrong" decision? If, under law, the constitution is what they say it is, then by definition, isn't whatever they say it is correct?

Is saying the supreme court did something wrong like saying I gave my child the wrong name? Isn't that child's name whatever I give it, and by definition it can not be "wrong" since it is my choice?

Discuss.


Among other things....

The Supreme court said slavery was legal...more than once
The Supreme court held that segragation was legal...
The Supreme court said that rounding up Japanese CITIZENS of the US and throwing them in concentration camps in the middle of the US was LEGAL .


So is the Supreme court as a reflection of society wrong ? Because they are men not Gods.

But as arbiters of the Constitution ..you have to wonder WTF they are thinking on a bunch of their decisions .

yes, indeed

However, if someone feels you are wrong, as a majority seems to feel, they have the right to try to stop you and have the right, and have used this right, to put sanctions on it.

Also, I usualy say at such a point "your freedom ends where that of another begins", in particular, the freedom of a child to live conflicts with your freedom to kill it. The majority decided you have less right to exercise your murdering freedom, and others have more right to exercise their freedom to live. You are still free to murder someone if you want to, and some people do. In such cases, you are also free to take the consequences

It is the majority that makes the law, and justice is what the majority says it is. Harsh but trueWell, that's a bit different than what Buddom said. With that said, I don't have a problem with the idea of putting the issue of marijuana use on a nationwide ballot and having people decide whether or not it should be legal. If the majority feels that it shouldn't be legal, then justice is marijuana being illegal, according to your post.

I just tend to think that as long as I'm not hurting anyone else, I should be the one telling myself how to run my life. Laws have a place, but it really is the citizen's choice as to weather they abide and for what reasons they do is the point I was trying to make.The first sentence is fine and should be the point you're trying to make. The second point is not useful for reasons I pointed out - by the criteria in the second sentence, people should have the choice of whether or not to murder children.

I just tend to think that as long as I'm not hurting anyone else, I should be the one telling myself how to run my life. Laws have a place, but it really is the citizen's choice as to weather they abide and for what reasons they do is the point I was trying to make.


Society has a duty to invariably enforce its just laws.

Fortunately, if you are indeed not hurting anyone, you will seldom run afoul of good laws.

Among other things....
The Supreme court said slavery was legal...more than once
The Supreme court held that segragation was legal...
The Supreme court said that rounding up Japanese CITIZENS of the US and throwing them in concentration camps in the middle of the US was LEGAL .



Im sure at one point it WAS legal...but then those darn activist judges had to step in!

What in god's name would possess you to post spam like this?

Boredom. What else?

Congress has the ability to change the Constitution

no they don't.

Among other things....

The Supreme court said slavery was legal...more than once
The Supreme court held that segragation was legal...
The Supreme court said that rounding up Japanese CITIZENS of the US and throwing them in concentration camps in the middle of the US was LEGAL .


So is the Supreme court as a reflection of society wrong ? Because they are men not Gods.

But as arbiters of the Constitution ..you have to wonder WTF they are thinking on a bunch of their decisions .

Slavery WAS legal, it said so right in the constitution. If it were not for the 13th (and arguably the 14th) amendments, it would STILL technically be legal. SCOTUS said slavery was legal, because it was, up until the 13th amendment made it illegal.

Additionally, Plessy v. Ferguson was not expressly overruled in Brown v. Board. Plessy said seperate but equal is ok. Brown said seperate schools CAN NOT be equal, and thus we can not have them. It never specifically addressed whether seperate but equal as a standard was dead.

And for what it's worth, Korematzu is still technically good law, SCOTUS has never actually overturned that decision.

no they don't.
Oh? And who do you suppose added on those amendments? God?

Oh? And who do you suppose added on those amendments? God?

a 3/4 or more majority of the state legislatures.

Read your constitution, congress CAN NOT pass an amendment. They can PROPOSE amendments, which are then sent to the STATES

A constitutional amendment can be PROPOSED either by a 2/3 majority in both houses OR a 2/3 majority of the state legislatures (this has never been done). If it fails to reach that 2/3 majority the proposal fails. If it reaches that majority it is sent to the state legislature's for a vote. 3/4 or more of the state legislatures must approve the amendment.

Congres can not, can not, CAN NOT alter the constitution. Only the states may do that.

Slavery WAS legal, it said so right in the constitution. If it were not for the 13th (and arguably the 14th) amendments, it would STILL technically be legal. SCOTUS said slavery was legal, because it was, up until the 13th amendment made it illegal.
It implied slavery was legal by the 3/5 clause, it did not come out and say "slaves be legal."

nitpicking, but nitpicking is what got the constitution changed in the first place/ :)

a 3/4 or more majority of the state legislatures.

Read your constitution, congress CAN NOT pass an amendment. They can PROPOSE amendments, which are then sent to the STATES
But those STATES CAN NOT PROPOSE amendments, only Congress.

Congress is part of the process, and they have the ability, not the power, to change th Constitution. Since only they can propose changes, they are the only ones to change it.

Both are a part of the process, Congress and state legislatures.

But those STATES CAN NOT PROPOSE amendments, only Congress.


Incorrect, yes they can.

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.

Moreover the quote was "congress can change the constitution." No, they can not. They can (though they need not be) instrumental in PROPOSING a change, but they can not change it. ONLY the states may do that.

Slavery WAS legal, it said so right in the constitution. If it were not for the 13th (and arguably the 14th) amendments, it would STILL technically be legal. SCOTUS said slavery was legal, because it was, up until the 13th amendment made it illegal.

Additionally, Plessy v. Ferguson was not expressly overruled in Brown v. Board. Plessy said seperate but equal is ok. Brown said seperate schools CAN NOT be equal, and thus we can not have them. It never specifically addressed whether seperate but equal as a standard was dead.

And for what it's worth, Korematzu is still technically good law, SCOTUS has never actually overturned that decision.
OK, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but I'm very confused by your post.

Where did it say that slavery was legal in the Constitution? I know it was interpreted as constitutional, but where was it ever laid out?

And in Brown v. Board, separate but equal was ruled unconstitutional because such practices could never foster equality; therefore, the 14th amendment was being violated by such laws, which were rendered null and void by the decision.

Where did it say that slavery was legal in the Constitution? I know it was interpreted as constitutional, but where was it ever laid out?

Article 1 section 2 clause 3 "adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"

Bound to Service was a euphamism for slavery. Since the constitution specifically mentioned the existance of slavery, how to count slaves in population, and made no other mention to it, the held interpretation was that it was legal.

This interpretation was NEVER overturned. The 13th amendment made it void.

And in Brown v. Board, separate but equal was ruled unconstitutional because such practices could never foster equality; therefore, the 14th amendment was being violated by such laws, which were rendered null and void by the decision.


From Oyez:

The long-held doctrine that separate facilities were permissible provided they were equal was rejected. Separate but equal is inherently unequal in the context of public education. The unanimous opinion sounded the death-knell for all forms of state-maintained racial separation.

Brown held that seperate can NEVER BE equal in terms of SCHOOLS. It did not say seperate but equal was inherently unconstitutional, it held that schools WERE NOT seperate but equal, and thus could not be segregated.

Again it did not specifically strike down seperate but equal, it said that schools COULD NOT BE EQUAL and thus the idea of seperate but equal could not apply. In theory seperate but equal, as long as it's equal, is still constitutionally valid.

Article 1 section 2 clause 3 "adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"

Bound to Service was a euphamism for slavery. Since the constitution specifically mentioned the existance of slavery, how to count slaves in population, and made no other mention to it, the held interpretation was that it was legal.

This interpretation was NEVER overturned. The 13th amendment made it void.




From Oyez:

The long-held doctrine that separate facilities were permissible provided they were equal was rejected. Separate but equal is inherently unequal in the context of public education. The unanimous opinion sounded the death-knell for all forms of state-maintained racial separation.

Brown held that seperate can NEVER BE equal in terms of SCHOOLS. It did not say seperate but equal was inherently unconstitutional, it held that schools WERE NOT seperate but equal, and thus could not be segregated.

Again it did not specifically strike down seperate but equal, it said that schools COULD NOT BE EQUAL and thus the idea of seperate but equal could not apply. In theory seperate but equal, as long as it's equal, is still constitutionally valid.
OK. It could be said that the ruling set a precedent for future laws regarding segregation of all types, but I see what you mean in the context of the ruling itself.

OK. It could be said that the ruling set a precedent for future laws regarding segregation of all types, but I see what you mean in the context of the ruling itself.

Actually, TECHNICALLY the doctrine that seperate but equal is constitutional has NEVER been specifically overturned.

The supreme court has NEVER said seperate but equal is unconstitutional. Various federal laws, state laws and state constitutions have rendered the issue more or less dead, HOWEVER the stand of seperate but equal is still technically good law.

Which was my point, the previous poster listed several things which the court has "changed its mind about" he listed slavery (pick a case, dredd scott will do), segregation/seperate but equal (plessy) and japanese american internment (korematzu).

slavery - the court did not change its mind and hold that slavery was unconstitutional. the 13th amendment MADE it unconstitutional. The court's opinion wasn't what changed the law. The amendment did

segregation/seperate but equal - the fundamental standard in plessy (seperate but equal is ok) has never, SPECIFICALLY, been overturned. It is technically still valid. Brown, which many people say "overturned" plessy, did not, it merely ruled that segregated schools are NOT equal. The law that Plessy was arrested for (black sitting in a white area of a train) could, TECHNICALLY, still be constitutionally valid. State and Federal laws bar it, but if those went away it could still, again technically, be valid, as seperate but equal as a constitutional doctrin has never been overruled.

japanese internment - again no change. Korematzu has never been overturned by the court and is still valid law.

Now, that being said, the question is can the Supreme Court be wrong? Now, I mean, obviously they can INTERPRET the constitution incorrectly, they can make a mistake and say something which is, in fact, untrue. But if under law, the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, and what the Supreme Court says becomes law, can they, as a legal matter, be wrong?

Is saying the supreme court did something wrong like saying I gave my child the wrong name? Isn't that child's name whatever I give it, and by definition it can not be "wrong" since it is my choice?

Artemis 101, you seem to be really intelligent. What grade are you in and where are you from?

Do you share, with me and most moderate Democrats, that the Supreme Court is the final and ONLY arbiter in Constitutional matters, especially when basic constitutional principles must evolve with a changing society?

The conservatives war on the the indeendent court is frightening, and I am concerned about my liberties if we base our freedom on some old fashioned racist 18th century document. :(

Artemis 101, you seem to be really intelligent. What grade are you in and where are you from?

Do you share, with me and most moderate Democrats, that the Supreme Court is the final and ONLY arbiter in Constitutional matters, especially when basic constitutional principles must evolve with a changing society?

The conservatives war on the the indeendent court is frightening, and I am concerned about my liberties if we base our freedom on some old fasioned racist 18th century document. :(
The Constitution has changed in order to evolve with a changing society...by way of constitutional amendments. That's why it remains possible to amend the document -- to allow for such changes to occur.

It's interesting that you seem to advocate that the Supreme Court, however, should stand in place of the amending process, which is obviously not their role and clearly beckons justices to function as legislators, and then speak of the conservative movement's war on the independent judiciary...

The Constitution has changed in order to evolve with a changing society...by way of constitutional amendments. That's why it remains possible to amend the document -- to allow for such changes to occur.

It's interesting that you seem to advocate that the Supreme Court, however, should stand in place of the amending process, which is obviously not their role and clearly beckons justices to function as legislators, and then speak of the conservative movement's war on the independent judiciary...

Dear Verve Pipe, you don't share the Founders view. The Founders intended the Constitution to only last 19 years. It has survived too long, mostly by people who have INTERNALIZED THEIR OPPRESSION like you have.

We need education, healthcare, childcare, recreation, pensions, food and housing TO BE PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Why wouldn't everyone want this? :( The Constitution believes in a "sacred" right to property, which is bloody rubbish. We are all descended from a common ancestor with Chimpanzee and Bonobo, and hence we have no right to property beyond what the government may allow for certain citizens who work hard for others.

Dear Verve Pipe, you don't share the Founders view. The Founders intended the Constitution to only last 19 years.

Where in the world, may I ask, did you get THAT idea? The constitution was built to survive the times, mainly because it can be CHANGED if need be.

The framers' writings seem to suggest an entirely opposite view, they built the constitution to stand the test of time, to be a guide to a young nation, to set out certain fundamental liberties and, if necessary, to change to adapt to the times. That's why the meant it to change.

The constituion is the supreme law of the land, it must never fall. it can, if the times dictate, be changed.

Healthcare, welfare etc etc are not impermissable with the constitution. The constitution allows for such things. If they be deemed necessary, the government can institute them without scrapping, or even amending the constitution. Rights, whether they exist in nature or not, have no bite unless authorized by law, property rights exist as a matter of law, whether that is a natural or man made right or not is...well, somewhat irrelevant to the discussion. It exists codified by law.

Where in the world, may I ask, did you get THAT idea? The constitution was built to survive the times, mainly because it can be CHANGED if need be.

The framers' writings seem to suggest an entirely opposite view, they built the constitution to stand the test of time, to be a guide to a young nation, to set out certain fundamental liberties and, if necessary, to change to adapt to the times. That's why the meant it to change.

The constituion is the supreme law of the land, it must never fall. it can, if the times dictate, be changed.


Artemis, after I complimented you for your enlightened view of the Constitution, you suddenly defend Antonin Scalia. Antonin Scalia is the greatest threat to liberty since the Founding.

Did you say where you are from yet?

Artemis, after I complimented you for your enlightened view of the Constitution, you suddenly defend Antonin Scalia. Antonin Scalia is the greatest threat to liberty since the Founding.

Did you say where you are from yet?

First off, tis Arthais, not Artemis. I know well was Scalia says, I neither denied nor defended that view.

I did say however that the Constitution was not intended to last only a few years. It was intended to last indefinitly, and the framers built in provisions, that should it no longer meet the needs of society, it can be changed to adapt.

I find Scalia's view to be...theoretically proper, but far too limited. I do not believe that his interpretations on definitions and intent is a proper one. I think his definition, specifically on concepts of "ordered liberty" are constructed far too narrowly to be applicable in modern society.

But to say that the constitution was not intended to endure denies historical accuracy.

Dear Verve Pipe, you don't share the Founders view. The Founders intended the Constitution to only last 19 years. It has survived too long, mostly by people who have INTERNALIZED THEIR OPPRESSION like you have.

We need education, healthcare, childcare, recreation, pensions, food and housing TO BE PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Why wouldn't everyone want this? :( The Constitution believes in a "sacred" right to property, which is bloody rubbish. We are all descended from a common ancestor with Chimpanzee and Bonobo, and hence we have no right to property beyond what the government may allow for certain citizens who work hard for others.
Dear Conscience and Truth,
The Constitution clearly lays out the role of the judiciary, the legislature, and the executive branches. The Founders intended the Court to function as a check on the power of the legislature and prevent them from legislating laws that conflicted with people's basic rights as they are defined by the Constitution. The Founders intended for the legislature to be concerned with issues and rights outside of those laid out by the Constitution, because the Constitution was only intended to lay out basic, fundamental freedom. However, to allow for changes in the Constitution in order to include other rights that the people had decided were basic and needed to be reflected as the supreme law of the land, such as the rights that you mentioned and the fact that you view them as fundamental, the Founders allowed for the Constitution to be amended.

If you are truly concerned with the fact that the supreme law of our land does not reflect your views, I encourage you to push for a Constitutional amendment that defines fundamental rights to education, healthcare, and so forth.

Sincerely,
Verve Pipe

prevent them from legislating laws that conflicted with people's basic rights as they are defined by the Constitution.

The problem is, as it's always been, figuring out what those basic rights are.

"liberty" is not exactly self defining.

Dear Verve Pipe, you don't share the Founders view. The Founders intended the Constitution to only last 19 years. It has survived too long, mostly by people who have INTERNALIZED THEIR OPPRESSION like you have.

We need education, healthcare, childcare, recreation, pensions, food and housing TO BE PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Why wouldn't everyone want this? :( The Constitution believes in a "sacred" right to property, which is bloody rubbish. We are all descended from a common ancestor with Chimpanzee and Bonobo, and hence we have no right to property beyond what the government may allow for certain citizens who work hard for others.

Can't agree with you, C&T. The right to property has nothing to do with religion, it has everything to do with having a society and economy that actually function. Nor do they necessarily obviate any of what you clearly consider the basic necessities; indeed, in a system where people are basically supposed to look after themselves, such as ours, the right to own property facilitates most of those functions.

"Why wouldn't everyone want this?" Because I dont want the government to have much say in my life. Government being a fundamentally untrustworthy institution, I am quite certain that I am both better qualified and more competent to see to my own life than any nebbish in the public services.

Can't agree with you, C&T. The right to property has nothing to do with religion, it has everything to do with having a society and economy that actually function. Nor do they necessarily obviate any of what you clearly consider the basic necessities; indeed, in a system where people are basically supposed to look after themselves, such as ours, the right to own property facilitates most of those functions.

"Why wouldn't everyone want this?" Because I dont want the government to have much say in my life. Government being a fundamentally untrustworthy institution, I am quite certain that I am both better qualified and more competent to see to my own life than any nebbish in the public services.

You are a right-wing extremist. The simple fact is a right to property if seriously applied would nullify every government program that seeks to take money from people who don't need it and give it to people who do.

Who wants to live in that type of society?

It would totally end the Free Development that was envisioned by Thomas Jefferson and the Founders, and require people to consider money before they do things. We don't want to be slaves anymore.! :( :(

The problem is, as it's always been, figuring out what those basic rights are.

"liberty" is not exactly self defining.
...

The first amendment lays out that speech, assembly, religion, the press, and petition are basic freedoms.

The second lays out that the right to bear arms in order to preserve a well-regulated militia is a basic freedom.

The fourth lays out that the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures is a basic freedom.

The fifth and sixth lay out a plethora of basic freedoms including the right to a speedy trial, to be tried by a jury of one's peers, the right to an attorney, and the right to be free from excessive bail, among others.

The eighth lays out that freedom from forms of cruel and unusual punishment is a basic freedom.

The fourteenth lays out that equality amongst all people is a basic freedom.

And so on and so forth. The basic freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution are laid out in such a way that is vague but specific enough to be recognized as to what they generally deal with.

Here's an example of the Supreme Court "getting it wrong".

http://library.wustl.edu/vlib/dredscott/

You are a right-wing extremist. The simple fact is a right to property if seriously applied would nullify every government program that seeks to take money from people who don't need it and give it to people who do.

Who wants to live in that type of society?

It would totally end the Free Development that was envisioned by Thomas Jefferson and the Founders, and require people to consider money before they do things. We don't want to be slaves anymore.! :( :(
I really hope this post was intended to be satirical...

You are a right-wing extremist. The simple fact is a right to property if seriously applied would nullify every government program that seeks to take money from people who don't need it and give it to people who do.

Who wants to live in that type of society?

It would totally end the Free Development that was envisioned by Thomas Jefferson and the Founders, and require people to consider money before they do things. We don't want to be slaves anymore.! :( :(

Well, I have been considered a tad conservative at times - but a right wing exteremist? I voted for Gore...:)

As to the right to own property - I must assume you are talking about something more than simply the right to own things, which is an assumed right in our society. Perhaps you could elucidate.

...

The first amendment lays out that speech, assembly, religion, the press, and petition are basic freedoms.

The second lays out that the right to bear arms in order to preserve a well-regulated militia is a basic freedom.

The fourth lays out that the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures is a basic freedom.

The fifth and sixth lay out a plethora of basic freedoms including the right to a speedy trial, to be tried by a jury of one's peers, the right to an attorney, and the right to be free from excessive bail, among others.

The eighth lays out that freedom from forms of cruel and unusual punishment is a basic freedom.

The fourteenth lays out that equality amongst all people is a basic freedom.

And so on and so forth. The basic freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution are laid out in such a way that is vague but specific enough to be recognized as to what they generally deal with.


Verve Pipe, you seem to embrace, like I do, the ideas of evolving Constitution. We know that certain things are basic freedoms, especially after colleges and professors have examined things and figured out what is applicable to today's society.

We need to start looking to experts to properly show us what our Constitution means. Chaining ourselves to the words of a 18th century document is frightening and fascist.

You are a right-wing extremist. The simple fact is a right to property if seriously applied would nullify every government program that seeks to take money from people who don't need it and give it to people who do.

Who wants to live in that type of society?

It would totally end the Free Development that was envisioned by Thomas Jefferson and the Founders, and require people to consider money before they do things. We don't want to be slaves anymore.! :( :(

What? The right of property is mentioned, explicitly, in the constitution. 14th amendment, "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

The constitution ALSO defines the right of the government to tax for the purpose of general welfare. Your argument would hold weight ONLY if the government was not empowered to tax. It is, explicitly.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

The power of the government to raise taxes for general welfare is explicitly and specfically mentioned.

Additionally, Thomas Jefferson had nothing to do with the writing of the Constitution, as he was in France at the time.

Moreover, I'm waiting for some proof of this claim that the constitution was meant to endure only 19 years.

I must assume you are talking about something more than simply the right to own things, which is an assumed right in our society.

it is not assumed.

It is expressly and specifically mentioned in the 14th amendment. No assumption on that fact necessary.

Well, I have been considered a tad conservative at times - but a right wing exteremist? I voted for Gore...:)

As to the right to own property - I must assume you are talking about something more than simply the right to own things, which is an assumed right in our society. Perhaps you could elucidate.


Well according to documents at the time of the Founding, if you want to go all Antonin Scalia on things, is that the right to property could not be abridged except for the purpose of paying one's portion of the expenses to protect the rights to life, liberty and property. :confused:

This would prevent the government from taxing in order to provide to needy citizens unless they had the consent of the propertyowner. What kind of society would we be if the government had to ask people to help the poor. :(

THERE IS NO RIGHT TO PROPERTY, and never has been one. Anyone who says there is I find to be so greedy and mean. :(

In order to use government to stop people from being mean and greedy, I urge a vote for Jon Tester in Montana, Jim Webb in Virginia, and Bob Casey in Pennsylvania. :)

Verve Pipe, you seem to embrace, like I do, the ideas of evolving Constitution. We know that certain things are basic freedoms, especially after colleges and professors have examined things and figured out what is applicable to today's society.

We need to start looking to experts to properly show us what our Constitution means. Chaining ourselves to the words of a 18th century document is frightening and fascist.

Why don't we just get out a copy of the dictionary, and redefine what all the words in the Constitution mean, and then we can say that we don't really have any freedoms anymore - just what the enlightened leaders who all know what's good for us will allow us.

After all, experts should decide what's good for us - we shouldn't dare to use our own brains. You know as well as I do that only concert pianists should play the piano, and only NBA stars should play basketball.

Verve Pipe, you seem to embrace, like I do, the ideas of evolving Constitution. We know that certain things are basic freedoms, especially after colleges and professors have examined things and figured out what is applicable to today's society.

We need to start looking to experts to properly show us what our Constitution means. Chaining ourselves to the words of a 18th century document is frightening and fascist.
No, I do not even come close to sharing your ideas about the Constitution.

The "experts" you speak are already employed -- they are the justices of the Supreme Court. Their role is to interpret laws in conjunction with the basic freedoms laid out by the Constitution. As such freedoms are vague, the Court is essential in deciding if laws truly respect them.

You advocate that the Court, however, reflect rights in their rulings that are no where mentioned in the Constitution. That is not the role of the Court at all, and not what the Framers intended. That is why they set up a legislature.

And for the record, Scalia is not a threat to democracy. He simply views the Constitution as a legal document that says certain things and doesn't say others. While a very ill-tempered and unpleasant person, his rulings generally reflect solid decision-making.

it is not assumed.

It is expressly and specifically mentioned in the 14th amendment. No assumption on that fact necessary.

My apologies, you are quite correct. I always forget the 14th, for some reason...

especially after colleges and professors have examined things and figured out what is applicable to today's society.

Colleges and professors do not have the authority to modify or legally interpret the constitution.

We need to start looking to experts to properly show us what our Constitution means.

We do. It's called the United States Supreme Court.

We need to start looking to experts to properly show us what our Constitution means. Chaining ourselves to the words of a 18th century document is frightening and fascist.
The supreme court is supposed to be the group of experts and chaining ourselves to an 18th century document is not frightening and a far way away from fascist given the governmental limitations that the document has. Our constitution was designed to be both stable and adaptable which is where its strength comes from. If we feel that it is in error we correct it and that is satisfactory for me and for many Americans.

The constitution ALSO defines the right of the government to tax for the purpose of general welfare. Your argument would hold weight ONLY if the government was not empowered to tax. It is, explicitly.

Moreover, I'm waiting for some proof of this claim that the constitution was meant to endure only 19 years.


Your beloved Jefferson and Thomas Paine wanted it for 19 years.

If you want to go all Antonia Scalia on things, then you are wrong about "general welfare." It was never intended to mean provide for the personal lifestyle of inidividual people, it was literally meant to do things that provided some intangible benefit for all Americans. Plus, the federal government wasn't intended to have a large role in the lifes of individual citizens, seeing as it was a compact between the States.

It was not until the mid-thirties until the Supreme Court finally allowed for a Constitutional evolution, that you see this being re-interpreted. And thank goodness it did, because otherwise only the top 1% would have education, healthcare, childcare, pensions, food and housing, and recreation, and the rest of us would be dying. :( :(

What? The right of property is mentioned, explicitly, in the constitution. 14th amendment, "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Of course, it could be argued that the legal definition of property doesn't fit the definition of property that the 14th Amendment meant to imply.

THERE IS NO RIGHT TO PROPERTY, and never has been one. Anyone who says there is I find to be so greedy and mean. :(



Hi.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. ...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law[/QUOTE]

However since you seem to stick to the idea that the government is not allowed to tax for the purposes of general welfare, I refer you again to Article 1, section 8:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

What kind of society would we be if the government had to ask people to help the poor.

Quite possibly, a freer one. However, I do accept the necessity for some forms of welfare.


THERE IS NO RIGHT TO PROPERTY, and never has been one. Anyone who says there is I find to be so greedy and mean. :(

Well, the 14th amendment seems to disagree with you.

Colleges and professors do not have the authority to modify or legally interpret the constitution.

We do. It's called the United States Supreme Court.

A modern, industrial society cannot simply function with vague notions of freedom and individual liberty. :( We need Active Liberty, and this needs to be provided by progressive majorities in the house and senate, and if it does not happen there, the Supreme Court must provide it.

I wish you would tell more about yourself, you seem like a nice enough person.

Of course, it could be argued that the legal definition of property doesn't fit the definition of property that the 14th Amendment meant to imply.

Which is exactly why we have the Supreme Court to sort out those sort of arguments, eh?

And..I doubt that this argument would be taken seriously as both the 14th amendment, and our notion of property, stem from the same sources, British Common Law

A modern, industrial society cannot simply function with vague notions of freedom and individual liberty. :(

Which is why we have a group of 9 people to define it. And should society find that definition lacking, society can change it.

What exactly are you advocating? that we set the constitution ablaze and start anew? ludicrus.

Which is exactly why we have the Supreme Court to sort out those sort of arguments, eh?

And..I doubt that this argument would be taken seriously as both the 14th amendment, and our notion of property, stem from the same sources, British Common LawIt seems to me that the law already has different types of property. There is private property, and there is capital (or commercial) property, with separate laws governing each. But you're probably right in that the court wouldn't differentiate in that respect, for the reasons that you outlined.

Which is exactly why we have the Supreme Court to sort out those sort of arguments, eh?

And..I doubt that this argument would be taken seriously as both the 14th amendment, and our notion of property, stem from the same sources, British Common Law

According to all the Founding documents that I have read as part of study, there is a limited right to personal property that is granted to you by government, but certainly no right to the means of production, or to escape from the government advising businesses on how to run their companies.

WE HAVE SEEN THE DESTRUCTION TO THE EARTH FROM allowing companies to run things, including global climate change. :eek: :( :(

In order to reverse this and allow our leader politicians to start advising businesses more closely and help guide the economy, we need Jon Tester and Jim Webb, as well as re-electing Maria Cantwell in Washington.

WE HAVE SEEN THE DESTRUCTION TO THE EARTH FROM allowing companies to run things, including global climate change. :eek: :( :(
Yes, and all those Communist nations that existed (or continue to exist) don't pollute a bit...

The problem is called "humans". Eliminate "humans" and you eliminate the problem.

No crime, no property, no pollution, no wars...

Your beloved Jefferson and Thomas Paine wanted it for 19 years.



Both Jefferson and Paine have nothing to do with the Constitution, as neither of them had any hand in writing it, given they were both in France at the time.

What Jefferson and Paine wanted from the Constitution is irrelevant, they didn't write it.

According to all the Founding documents that I have read as part of study, there is a limited right to personal property that is granted to you by government, but certainly no right to the means of production, or to escape from the government advising businesses on how to run their companies.

WE HAVE SEEN THE DESTRUCTION TO THE EARTH FROM allowing companies to run things, including global climate change. :eek: :( :(

In order to reverse this and allow our leader politicians to start advising businesses more closely and help guide the economy, we need Jon Tester and Jim Webb, as well as re-electing Maria Cantwell in Washington.
Of course there are no basic, Constitutional guarantees of rights for businesses, but state and federal legislatures have allowed for the rights of corporations in order to sustain a healthy economy. If you want to see change in this way, you should support legislative action, not action by the Courts, because it is not their role to do so, nor is it legally justified for them to do so as well.

Both Jefferson and Paine have nothing to do with the Constitution, as neither of them had any hand in writing it, given they were both in France at the time.

What Jefferson and Paine wanted from the Constitution is irrelevant, they didn't write it.

Artemis, I don't agree with your right-wing views at all, but you seem like a nice Republican. I'm sure you are concerned about President Bush's attacks on our liberty at home. I just hope you never get married because you will want your wife to stay home cleaning the house all day.

Of course there are no basic, Constitutional guarantees of rights for businesses

Unless you read Lochner, hehe.

And actually, you'd be somewhat incorrect in that. As I said the constitution stems from British Commonlaw, and many of the right that the constitution implicitly implies are those rights that were considered rights at the time under British Commonlaw. Included in those is a right to contract (which is basically the formation of business).

So I'd argue, and I think that the court would agree with me, that the right for commerce and business is implicit in the right to contract.

Artemis, I don't agree with your right-wing views at all, but you seem like a nice Republican. I'm sure you are concerned about President Bush's attacks on our liberty at home. I just hope you never get married because you will want your wife to stay home cleaning the house all day.
Okay, seriously, I'm really starting to think that your comments are satirical. Really. If they are, I must say, they have made me chuckle, a rare feat indeed.

Artemis, I don't agree with your right-wing views at all, but you seem like a nice Republican. I'm sure you are concerned about President Bush's attacks on our liberty at home. I just hope you never get married because you will want your wife to stay home cleaning the house all day.

And how does that follow? I'm a Republican who is married, and my wife does not stay at home cleaning the house all day. I have a housekeeper who does that.

Artemis, I don't agree with your right-wing views at all, but you seem like a nice Republican. I'm sure you are concerned about President Bush's attacks on our liberty at home. I just hope you never get married because you will want your wife to stay home cleaning the house all day.

Hi, I'm a liberal.

That doesn't change the fact that what Jefferson and Paine thought of the constitution does not matter as they

did

not

write

it.

They were in France. What Jefferson wanted, what Paine wanted, is not relevant, they were not involved in it.

you made some ludicrus claim that the constitution was only "meant to last 19years" and when I challenged that you stated (without a source) that Jefferson and Paine only wanted it to last 19 years. Even if true, irrelevant. jefferson and paine didn't write it and weren't involved in it. They were in Europe.

And if you're going to call me by name, at least have the respect enough to get it right. It's Arthais, not Artemis as I've already pointed out.

Unless you read Lochner, hehe.

And actually, you'd be somewhat incorrect in that. As I said the constitution stems from British Commonlaw, and many of the right that the constitution implicitly implies are those rights that were considered rights at the time under British Commonlaw. Included in those is a right to contract (which is basically the formation of business).

So I'd argue, and I think that the court would agree with me, that the right for commerce and business is implicit in the right to contract.
This could be argued, still, because there is no language in the Constitution that lays out the rights of businesses.

C&T, while I generally agree with your views, you would do better to save your rhetoric for when you're 'preaching to the choir', as the saying goes.

And how does that follow? I'm a Republican who is married, and my wife does not stay at home cleaning the house all day. I have a housekeeper who does that.
I bet she's Mexican! AHA! I bet you pay her 50 cents an hour instead of paying decent wages to an American! YOU ARE AN EXTREMIST!

This could be argued, still, because there is no language in the Constitution that lays out the rights of businesses.

True, but the 14th amendment outlines the right to "liberty".

When the court has tried to define liberty they look for things that would be considered necessary "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty". I think it's a pretty widely held view that the right to contract would be one of those things implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.

You could ARGUE it sure, I just don't think it's anywhere close to a winning argument.

I bet she's Mexican! AHA! I bet you pay her 50 cents an hour instead of paying decent wages to an American! YOU ARE AN EXTREMIST!
No, she's a white woman who used to be on welfare. A diabetic who now has medical insurance through me.

Yeah, I'm an extremist all right.

And how does that follow? I'm a Republican who is married, and my wife does not stay at home cleaning the house all day. I have a housekeeper who does that.

Sedation Ministry, I suppose you are a Rich Republican. How's your butler doing? Do you fear the coming Democratic majority and the loss of your property?

You have an obligation to provide everyone with healthcare, childcare, housing, food, some minimal recreation, a pension, and an education (including higher education).

If you don't do this, the next Democratic Congress will do it for you.

If you, like me, mainstream Democrats, our public educators across the nation, and others, support a rising standard of living for all Americans, and if you want to see "Live like a Republican (like Ministry), Vote Democratic," then you NEED to elect Jon Tester in Montana, Jim Webb, Bob Casey, Bernie Sanders, etc. in the fall. Otherwise, we won't have liberty anymore.

Sedation Ministry, I suppose you are a Rich Republican. How's your butler doing? Do you fear the coming Democratic majority and the loss of your property?

You have an obligation to provide everyone with healthcare, childcare, housing, food, some minimal recreation, a pension, and an education (including higher education).

If you don't do this, the next Democratic Congress will do it for you.

If you, like me, mainstream Democrats, our public educators across the nation, and others, support a rising standard of living for all Americans, and if you want to see "Live like a Republican (like Ministry), Vote Democratic," then you NEED to elect Jon Tester in Montana, Jim Webb, Bob Casey, Bernie Sanders, etc. in the fall. Otherwise, we won't have liberty anymore.

Do not presume to speak for mainstream democrats. You are far from it.

Hi, I'm a liberal.

That doesn't change the fact that what Jefferson and Paine thought of the constitution does not matter as they

did

not

write

it.

They were in France. What Jefferson wanted, what Paine wanted, is not relevant, they were not involved in it.

you made some ludicrus claim that the constitution was only "meant to last 19years" and when I challenged that you stated (without a source) that Jefferson and Paine only wanted it to last 19 years. Even if true, irrelevant. jefferson and paine didn't write it and weren't involved in it. They were in Europe.

And if you're going to call me by name, at least have the respect enough to get it right. It's Arthais, not Artemis as I've already pointed out.

You don't seem liberal Artemis, but I'm glad you still vote for progressive policies even though you spew republican propaganda.

The fact is I'm glad that the Democrats don't have any allegiance to an 18th century document that encouraged slavery. Why should you try to defend it.

The fact is I'm glad that the Democrats don't have any allegiance to an 18th century document that encouraged slavery. Why should you try to defend it.

Funny, every president, democrat or replublican has pledged their allegiance to that 18th century document in their oath of office.

And may I recommend you read the 13th amendment?

And point out to me one part of the post you quoted that is "republicant propaganda", unless the democratic party wishes to content that Jefferson was, in fact, in Spain at the time of the Constitution, not France.

I'm still waiting for your proof that the Constitution was only meant to last 19 years. Please show it to me.

No, she's a white woman who used to be on welfare. A diabetic who now has medical insurance through me.

Yeah, I'm an extremist all right.
Hmmm... C+T, you got anything?

Seriously though, there must be a satirical nature in C+T's posts. I mean, just read them. Am I the only one who thinks so?

Hmmm... C+T, you got anything?

Seriously though, there must be a satirical nature in C+T's posts. I mean, just read them. Am I the only one who thinks so?

I would think so, however I've known a lot of idealistically clueless teenagers that sound just like him, so I contend it's POSSIBLE that this is for real.

Hmmm... C+T, you got anything?

Seriously though, there must be a satirical nature in C+T's posts. I mean, just read them. Am I the only one who thinks so?
I honestly don't know. He has posted like this many times before and even at one point posted for a view completely opposite of the one he pushes right now. It could be satire or it could be insanity, I really cannot say, he has never said what it was before.

I would think so, however I've known a lot of idealistically clueless teenagers that sound just like him, so I contend it's POSSIBLE that this is for real.

Arthais, you are teenager, and yet you claim to be Democrat, probably just because you want to hang out with the cool cats, but in reality do you realize that if you show fidelity to the actual constitution in the manner it was intended to be read, you will be forced to be republican in virtually everything.

Even though I hate republicans, being honest, as many Dems aren't, the Republican party is much more in line with the thinking of the Founders.

Arthais, you are teenager.

I'm a teenager?

Shit, better inform the government, my birth certificate is ALL wrong.

My mother may wish to know this too, I guess she didn't realize she gave birth in her 40s...

do you realize that if you show fidelity to the actual constitution in the manner it was intended to be read, you will be forced to be republican in virtually everything.

No, I show fidelity to the supreme law of this country, which includes both the ability to tax for public welfare and the rights to liberty.

I honestly don't know. He has posted like this many times before and even at one point posted for a view completely opposite of the one he pushes right now. It could be satire or it could be insanity, I really cannot say, he has never said what it was before.

The only times I make a point opposite, I will clearly state "this is the fundy view," or "this is the republican view," other times it should be obvious.

I am a progressive, mainstream Democrat, and most Democrats share my views, I don't know why everyone thinks I'm extreme. I think some Dems are nervous because they hold to the flawed idea that you have to be pretend to be republican to win the election. I DON"T BELIEVE THAT!

I am a progressive, mainstream Democrat, and most Democrats share my views

Let's settle that thought once and for all.

What do you think is an appropriate tax rate for the rich (rich as I define as a single salary over $120,000 annually or a household income over $250,000 annually pre tax)?

The only times I make a point opposite, I will clearly state "this is the fundy view," or "this is the republican view," other times it should be obvious.

I am a progressive, mainstream Democrat, and most Democrats share my views, I don't know why everyone thinks I'm extreme. I think some Dems are nervous because they hold to the flawed idea that you have to be pretend to be republican to win the election. I DON"T BELIEVE THAT!
Ok, if you are mainstream then take this test and compare your position to that of the democrat party as given at the end under US political parties.

Test (www.moral-politics.com)

Let's settle that thought once and for all.

What do you think is an appropriate tax rate for the rich (rich as I define as a single salary over $120,000 annually or a household income over $250,000 annually pre tax)

The government needs to determine how much it needs to help everyone who needs help. Then we should say, what the maximum private salary needed. If you can live on $40,000, everything above should probably taxed at 70%-90%. If the poor are all taken care of, the government can give our cash "bonuses" to people who can use the money, or other grants. For example, they could give 9it for producing research on climate change, on innovative comprehensive sex education in piublic schools to reduce pregnancy.

If you can live on $40,000, everything above should probably taxed at 70%-90%.

Yeah...you aint mainstream.

To clarify, I do not believe you will find a single truly progressive and mainstream democrat who would agree with a 70-90 % tax rate.

That is WELL beyond mainstream.

To clarify, I do not believe you will find a single truly progressive and mainstream democrat who would agree with a 70-90 % tax rate.

That is WELL beyond mainstream.

Arthais, I don't care what the rate is, all I know is that there are people who don't need the extra money, and it should be used to help run programs to help people.

Isn't helping people the primary function of government? :)

What do you think Artemis, since you care about people a lot too by being Democratic. :)

Arthais, I don't care what the rate is, all I know is that there are people who don't need the extra money, and it should be used to help run programs to help people.

Isn't helping people the primary function of government? :)

What do you think Artemis, since you care about people a lot too by being Democratic. :)

The rule of the government is to strike the balance between society and the individual.

I really hope this post was intended to be satirical...


Just more forum graffiti from the troll-the-mods-refuse-to-ban.

The rule of the government is to strike the balance between society and the individual.

Please explain more Arthais.

Arthais, I don't care what the rate is, all I know is that there are people who don't need the extra money, and it should be used to help run programs to help people.
If no one is allowed to keep their money beyond $40,000, no one will bother earning more than $40,000. That will gut your government revenue, and dramatically reduce overall production.

Isn't helping people the primary function of government? :)
The role of government is to enforce society's rules. Where we all differ is on how extensively those rules should control the lives of individuals.

The government needs to determine how much it needs to help everyone who needs help. Then we should say, what the maximum private salary needed. If you can live on $40,000, everything above should probably taxed at 70%-90%. If the poor are all taken care of, the government can give our cash "bonuses" to people who can use the money, or other grants. For example, they could give 9it for producing research on climate change, on innovative comprehensive sex education in piublic schools to reduce pregnancy.


Now that's completely opposite of what you were defending in the Taxes thread. You were argueing for a regressive tax there now you're argueing for some sort of psycho-progressive tax.

Which is it?

Now that's completely opposite of what you were defending in the Taxes thread. You were argueing for a regressive tax there now you're argueing for some sort of psycho-progressive tax.

Which is it?


Its called trolling.

Its called trolling.

I recognize that. I also like to see if they can swim or not when pushed into the deep end of the pool.

Now that's completely opposite of what you were defending in the Taxes thread. You were argueing for a regressive tax there now you're argueing for some sort of psycho-progressive tax.

Which is it?

As I suggested in one of the pedophilia threads, either C&T holds the strangest collection of opinions ever to exist inside one human, or he's actively trying to produce a response.

yup, at this point I am convinced he is far from sincere and more just interested in trolling.

1) the highest legal authority in the nation is the United States Supreme Court

2) It is the job of the Supreme Court to (among other things) interpret the constitutionBut if under law, the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, and what the Supreme Court says becomes law, can they, as a legal matter, be wrong?The notion that the Supreme Court is the highest legal authority for purposes of constitutional interpretation is hardly a settled matter... even on the Court itself.

The doctrine of judicial supremacy certainly appears nowhere in the document itself... and to date the most powerful argument for judicial restraint has been Justice Frankfurter's, to the effect that if a coequal branch (the President or Congress) presents a plausible constitutional interpretation, then the Court should allow it to stand, even if a majority of justices would interpret the document differently.

In other words, since the Court cannot be certain that it is right, it should defer to the democratic branches except when they are rather obviously wrong.