I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Joined: Jun 26, 2007 Posts: 1461 Location: The Canada of America
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:44 pm Post subject: Re: Constitutional crisis brewing
Fishman wrote:
capitulated to perceived abuses
I see no abuse here, maybe more argueable activits judge. Oh my God, isn't that abuse of the powers of the constitution? SEND THEM BACK TO CHINA
You and Caz need to go back in time about 200 years and get caught up on the institution of judicial review. _________________ I can has cheezburger?
Joined: Jun 26, 2007 Posts: 1461 Location: The Canada of America
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:46 pm Post subject: Re: Constitutional crisis brewing
pana_burda wrote:
and in spite being voted "NO" by a "pirric majority" of venezuelans in our last refferendum
...he respected and observed the result, yeah, we know. Goes against the grain for you moneyed types in South America... must just make you sick, huh? _________________ I can has cheezburger?
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:49 pm Post subject: Re: Constitutional crisis brewing
Oh I understand the Constitution alright - its creation and its history.
Let's be clear about this:
Saying it's a "living document" is a euphemistic way of saying that it's "open to be changed according to our times".
Calling it a "living document" is a lie they propagate to get people to accept decisions like Roe v. Wade.
Well, if that's how you feel, then why do you get in a dander because George Bush wants to interpret it differently than you?
Hmm?
If it is, in fact, interpretable, then what makes your interpretation better than George's?
So here it is as clearly as I can write it:
If rules can be changed through interpretation, then they aren't rules at all, they are merely suggestions.
If you believe that the Constitution can be "interpreted" to mean something different in 2008 than it did in 1800, then you are a firm believer that the Constitution has no weight of law, but is merely a document that suggests how we govern ourselves, depending on how the wind of culture has shifted.
I use Roe v. Wade as the perfect example of this.
Roe v. Wade wasn't about abortion. Roe v. Wade was about what's in the Constitution. Simple as that.
5 bozos made the decision that the Constitution had a provision that guaranteed a right to abortion.
The provision is this:
Quote:
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;
Well, it's really simple, isn't it?
If you can create a right to abortion out of those words, then you can create a right to anything out of those words.
There is no doubt that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution would have all said that the Constitution gave no protection for abortion.
So, of course, this means that the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, made the decision to change the Constitution. They made the decision to change it from what the rules originally meant - no inherent right to an abortion - to what they thought it should mean - a right to an abortion.
Please try to keep in mind that this is not about abortion. Hysterical women think it is, but it isn't. Hysterical women scream things like:
Quote:
a woman's right to govern what happens to her own body
and they don't consider what the net effect is.
The net effect is to allow 5 bozos to change the meaning of the Constitution.
By allowing 5 bozos to change the Constitution any way they see fit at any time they see fit for any reason they see fit, what you do is make the document worthless as a defense of basic rights.
The 5 bozos can decide to ban guns. Or make bazookas legal.
To ban abortion, or make abortion legal up to 1 second before birth.
To make Govt seizure of private property to hand to other private citizens legal (New London), or make all govt seizure illegal.
To make torture of people legal, or make torture illegal.
To make castration of purple hamsters legal, or make castration of purple hamsters illegal.
We allowed that to happen. We didn't riot in the streets. We didn't even fuss much.
We just allowed them to change it. And they have, repeatedly, and we have done nothing.
And here's where you need to focus, so you can really make the fools look foolish.
Many people who favor "the living document" nonsense will accuse you of ridiculous things like wanting black kids to remain in black only schools.
They point to Brown v. Board and say - "if we listened to you, then black kids would still be segregated."
But there's a killer response to this:
The Constitution provides a mechanism to change the Constitution.
If you want to change the Constitution, then amend it through the process by which the people and the states change it - not 5 bozos in robes.
But what they have done is short cut the process.
Rather than ruling that, "as much as we think abortion should be a federally protected right, we clearly find no support in the Constitution for the right, and we suggest that, if a Federal protection is desired, the process for amending the Constitution should be started - it is not our job to amend it."
When you ask 99% of people "was Roe v. Wade a good decision" they will answer you as if you asked, "do you think abortion should be legal?"
It is this self-imposed ignorance that has led us to where we are at.
The Feds have been grabbing power since before the ink on the Constitution was dry.
They have grabbed it, and we have let them grab it. We have encouraged them to grab it.
Because we are weak.
Because unlike the Jeffersons and Adams and Madisons and Jacksons, we are weak and we covet the illusion of protection that government provides.
The 5 bozos grabbing Federal power through "interpretation" of the Constitution is the same behavior as Bush grabbing power through executive orders. Or the Legislature grabbing power through excessive taxation followed by a return of tax money to states in "funding" only if the states agree to do things that the Feds could not directly legislate. What's that? Can't tell a state what its speed limit should be? Ok. Tax its citizens an extra 5% and then condition the return of that 5% on adherence to "federal guidelines."
The Constitution is a rag.
It's a complete and utter rag.
I fancy that I'd have readily died to put it in place. I reckon that I subscribe to the ideals it embodied, and the sacrifice and dedication of those who put it in place.
The hideous hydra into which it has been butchered, on the other hand, is nothing but an ass rag, and as such I pity any who still cling to it in the hopes that they can squeeze some essence of Jefferson out of it.
If you support any of the "interpretations" of the Constitution that 5 bozos have decided on that are different from what the rules originally meant, then use have used the Constitution as your own personal ass rag.
So, Seahorse, save your "save the Republic" garbage - you're clinging to a myth. The Republic is dead, and it died long ago.
Most people are too stupid, too ignorant, or too delusional to understand that they killed the Republic. _________________ Massive Human Dieoff must occur as a result of Peak Oil. Many more than half will die. It will occur everywhere, including where you live. If you fail to recognize this, then your odds of living move toward the "going to die" group.
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:21 pm Post subject: Re: Constitutional crisis brewing
Cashmere,
Of all the people I've ever seen post on PO.com, your avatar, the morbidly obese white woman that can't stand up, more than any other avatar, reflects the attitude of your posts. So, I begin:
Quote:
Saying it's a "living document" is a euphemistic way of saying that it's "open to be changed according to our times".
Does that logic equally apply to your "living bible"? I raise the issue, but will otherwise leave religion out of this discussion.
You mistakenly assume that calling the Constitution a "living document" is a euphemism for saying it can be changed according to our times. The Constitution sets up a framework of government, three co-equal branches of gov't, the purpose of which is to diffuse power among them and in doing so, reserve ultimate power to the people that created it.
In that system of government, the courts are required to interpret laws passed by succeeding generations of Americans, but that does not mean that the Constitution is changed by court decisions for it is not. The Constitutional framework is only changed by Constitutional amendment, not interpretation.
Courts interpret laws, because Congress passes laws. Congress passes law, because things change, technology changes. Literally millions of laws and regulations have been passed since the Constitution was drafted. Obviously, things have changed over the last 200 years haven't they? Let's start by the fact that Jefferson didn't have any toilet paper to wipe his rear with and doctors back then still "leached" infections out of people. Further, when our forefathers were drafting the 4th Amendment against search and seizure, there were no phones, faxes, wiretapping, postal service etc. All to say that as technology changes, the courts are constantly forced to interpret the 4th Amendment and all Amendments in like of new technological developments and new laws. What about oil drilling technology? Our forefathers didn't understand oil back then, so "property rights" had to be interpreted in accordance with the discovery of oil and continually interpreted to account for ever changing drilling technologies. However, nothing has changed the basic framework of three separate and co-equal branches of government.
Quote:
If rules can be changed through interpretation, then they aren't rules at all, they are merely suggestions.
Oh Cashmere, its when you think you know it all that you have the most to learn. Take the above statement, the rules are changing therefore they are only suggestions. Not so. The Constitution sets the rules, called checks and balances between three co-equal branches of government. Under that set of rules, the Court decides if the laws passed by Congress are Constitutional or what they mean in any given set of facts. This is no different than the Bible making it a sin to kill. Christians interpret that as precluding murder but not the right of self-defense. Thus, the Constitutional "rules" aren't being changed by court decisions, and again, go back to the earlier example of the 4th Amendment isn't being changed, its being interpreted in light of new developments etc.
Quote:
If you believe that the Constitution can be "interpreted" to mean something different in 2008 than it did in 1800, then you are a firm believer that the Constitution has no weight of law, but is merely a document that suggests how we govern ourselves,
Really? You presume that the courts are reinterpreting the same questions in 2008 that were presented in 1808. They are not. The facts on any two cases are never the same. Old cases are considered "precedent" but, since facts and technologies change, new decisions are required. For example, the 4th Amendment has not changed since 1808. What has changed is the fact that we have new technologies now that didn't exist then and require us to reconsider the 4th Amendment prohibitions in light of those new technologies. Deciding when wire tapping is Constitutional under the 4th Amendment and when its not does not change the prohibitions of the 4th Amendment. New 4th Amendment cases on the 4th Amendment have not changed the 4th Amendment as interpreted in 1808. Those decisions still stand as precedent, although very little these days, as the world is so different now than it was then.
Quote:
Calling it a "living document" is a lie they propagate to get people to accept decisions like Roe v. Wade.
Now, you are venting your true feelings. Your dislike of Roe v. Wade shows your hatred of the Constitution rests really on one court decision that conflicts with your religious views. Unfortunately, the law is this, the Courts decide the Constitutionality or applicability of issues its presented, whether you, I or Bush agree with it. The Constitution has the weight of law whether you or I like it. If you don't believe it does, quit paying your taxes or go rob a bank and see where that gets you.
Now, I will say this, there will be a day when Roe v Wade falls under the weight of its own reasoning. Why? In that decision, the court struggled with defining when a fetus is a "person" capable of surviving on its own, and thus, Constitutional protection. It based its decision of a person as a being capable of surviving on its own. Which simply means that technology will one day make this decision completely meaningless, as they will one day be capable of growing babies in test tubes if they want.
Quote:
Well, if that's how you feel, then why do you get in a dander because George Bush wants to interpret it differently than you?
My dander is up bc the courts interpret the Constitution, not the President. Do you not understand that? It is an absolute check that must not fail. If it fails, we live in a dictatorship.
Quote:
If it is, in fact, interpretable, then what makes your interpretation better than George's?
I never said mine was. And, its apparent that you don't understand the Constitutional "rules" which are simple, the courts determine Constitutionality, not Bush or me.
Quote:
If rules can be changed through interpretation, then they aren't rules at all, they are merely suggestions.
On this, you and Bush agree.
Quote:
If you believe that the Constitution can be "interpreted" to mean something different in 2008 than it did in 1800, then you are a firm believer that the Constitution has no weight of law, but is merely a document that suggests how we govern ourselves, depending on how the wind of culture has shifted.
I do believe the Constitution can be interpreted to mean something different now than in 1800. If the 4th Amendment examples aren't enough, then let's try machine guns under the Second Amendment. They didn't have machine-guns in 1800, so, the Courts are now required to determine the Second Amendment Constitutionality of laws restricting things like machine-guns, or the First Amendment constitutionality of prohibitions against telephone solicitations, or the Constitutionality of business practices restricting Muslims from praying in schools or factories during work hours, or forcing people to work on the sabbath, etc.
Quote:
If you can create a right to abortion out of those words, then you can create a right to anything out of those words.
I will not quote the whole Roe v Wade opinion, but you ought to read it and try to understand it before you conclude, erroneously, that the court acted beyond its power. The whole question in Roe centered on trying to define what is a person, which the court ultimately concluded a person has to be capable of surviving on its own. One could argue the case was decided with the future in mind, because in the end, technology will do away with the very problem you complain of with the case.
Quote:
There is no doubt that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution would have all said that the Constitution gave no protection for abortion.
You assume too much. You assume the founding fathers had the same religious views you did. If you ever read Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason" or Jefferson's Bible, you would understand that you assume too much about what they believed or would accept.
Quote:
of course, this means that the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, made the decision to change the Constitution. They made the decision to change it from what the rules originally meant - no inherent right to an abortion - to what they thought it should mean - a right to an abortion.
You've strayed way off in left field now. The courts did not change the Constitution, correctly or incorrectly they followed the rules established by the Constitution and interpreted the Constitutionality of a state law prohibiting abortion, because there is no Constitutional prohibition against abortion. If the Court was wrong in Roe v Wade, then its up to Congress to amend the Constitution which is its perogative. Until that time, the courts will have to interpret the term "person." Further, its misleading to suggest the court ruled there is an absolute right to abortion.
All of your remaining comments assume the court is changing the constitution when it is not. The court is interpreting the Constitution, and it is up to the Congress to change the Constitution. That is the way the Constitution is set up. Congress amending the Constitution is the check and balance on the Supreme Court. The fact that you don't understand that only shows you don't understand the Constitution though you profess that you do. The reason people haven't rioted in the streets at decisions like Roe v Wade is because just as many people agree with the decision as disagree. There is no majority consensus, certainly not enough to amend the Constitution, and thus the courts will have to interpret it until amended. Like it or not, those are the rules.
You're next statements are really kooky and only reinforce my belief as an attorney that the more people talk, the truth is bound to come out sometime, and that at some point in time, even in this conversation, you should take the Fifth and shut your mouth, for your bigotry is starting to show.
Quote:
Many people who favor "the living document" nonsense will accuse you of ridiculous things like wanting black kids to remain in black only schools.
They point to Brown v. Board and say - "if we listened to you, then black kids would still be segregated."
But there's a killer response to this:
The Constitution provides a mechanism to change the Constitution.
You think that's a killer response? You think we need a Constitutional amendment to allow black kids to go to school with white kids? Where does the Constitution prohibit black kids from going to school with white kids? You need to take your racist glasses off and read it again. White people interpreted the Constitution as saying separate but equal as a form of institutionalized racism to get around the prohibitions of the 13th Amendment.
Its interesting that you argue abortion is somehow Constitutionally is implicitly, not explicitly, prohibited by the following language:
Quote:
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;
Yet, you do not see that the above explicitly prohibits sending black kids to separate schools. No Constitutional amendment was needed. All that was needed was for the Constitution to be enforced, which Brown v. Board of Education did.
Quote:
The 5 bozos grabbing Federal power through "interpretation" of the Constitution is the same behavior as Bush grabbing power through executive orders.
No, its not. The courts dont' have the power to arrest people and jail them for violating any laws or to start wars. The courts only have the power to interpret cases in front of them. Bush grabbing power is supposed to be checked by the courts or by Congress. If not, we live in a dictatorship.
Quote:
Or the Legislature grabbing power through excessive taxation followed by a return of tax money to states in "funding" only if the states agree to do things that the Feds could not directly legislate. What's that? Can't tell a state what its speed limit should be? Ok. Tax its citizens an extra 5% and then condition the return of that 5% on adherence to "federal guidelines."
Again, the legislature can pass any law it wants. Whether its Constitutional is a different matter.
Quote:
I fancy that I'd have readily died to put it in place. I reckon that I subscribe to the ideals it embodied, and the sacrifice and dedication of those who put it in place.
Me too.
Quote:
The hideous hydra into which it has been butchered, on the other hand, is nothing but an ass rag, and as such I pity any who still cling to it in the hopes that they can squeeze some essence of Jefferson out of it.
The hideous Constitutional hydra to which you refer has three equal heads that are supposed to bite each other, not us. As for squeezing some essence of Jefferson out of it, that hydra may produce milk, you just have to know how to squeeze its teet.
Last edited by seahorse2 on Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:37 am; edited 4 times in total
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 6976 Location: My Grandkids' Farm
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:55 pm Post subject: Re: Constitutional crisis brewing
My thought is we call them the Framers of the Constitution because they built a framework within which voters, whatever the period, could exercise their rights over all branches of government.
Pretty good idea since politicians have tried to extend their powers at all times in our history and have ultimately been caught up short. Not to say there weren't struggles.
The Cheney/Bush administration I believe stretched have the authority of the executive about as far as it will go and it is about time it be reined in.
And it will - it always has.
What are the most fundamental rights of a citizen?
1. A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation.
2. A resident of a city or town, especially one entitled to vote and enjoy other privileges there.
So I'm thinking this is not a crisis brewing, it's just the same old pot simmering; we'll stir it a bit and keep it from boiling over.
Just my Very uneducated view, Horse... _________________ Make a plan and work it:
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:00 pm Post subject: Re: Constitutional crisis brewing
I thought one of the reasons chosen to use Gitmo for the terrorists, alleged or proven, is that it is not in the USA and therefore not subject to to the U.S. Constitution. Its a bit of an end run, but end runs are not illegal.
Military bases fall under the "Uniform Code of Military Justice", not the U.S. Constitution, at least that is what learned back in school many years go.
Joined: Oct 15, 2004 Posts: 2251 Location: Arkansas
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:03 pm Post subject: Re: Constitutional crisis brewing
Pops,
I don't disagree with you, not anything you said, and in fact, you said it a lot more succintly than I did. I think that for the people to reign the executive back in, its important that people recognize the problem, and that's really what I'm trying to do here, define a problem, really, in my own mind and for my own sake. When one tries to express ideas in writing, it helps develop those ideas. I hope that this process helps others too.
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 6976 Location: My Grandkids' Farm
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:33 pm Post subject: Re: Constitutional crisis brewing
seahorse wrote:
I think that for the people to reign the executive back in, its important that people recognize the problem, and that's really what I'm trying to do here, define a problem, really, in my own mind and for my own sake.
Thanks Horse for your posts.
Sometimes around here the theatrical cynicism really gets overwhelming and someone like you interjecting a little historical reality is greatly appreciated. _________________ Make a plan and work it:
Joined: Jun 26, 2007 Posts: 1461 Location: The Canada of America
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:42 pm Post subject: Re: Constitutional crisis brewing
seahorse2 wrote:
In that system of government, the courts are required to interpret laws passed by succeeding generations of Americans, but that does not mean that the Constitution is changed by the decisions for it is not. The Constitutional framework is only changed by Constitutional amendment, not interpretation. Courts interpret laws, because Congress passes laws. Congress passes law, because things change, technology changes. Literally millions of laws and regulations have been passed since the Constitution was drafted. Obviously, things have changed over the last 200 years...
Uncommon clarity of thought and expression. I really have to congratulate you. No emotion, no ad hominem attacks, simply telling it plainly the way it is. Really, nicely done.
seahorse2 wrote:
Cashmere wrote:
Calling it a "living document" is a lie they propagate to get people to accept decisions like Roe v. Wade.
Now, you are venting your true feelings. Your dislike of Roe v. Wade shows your hatred of the Constitution rests really on one court decision that conflicts with your religious views.
I wonder if, as a proponent of the Founders' original intent, Caz is prepared to acknowledge that when the US Constitution was ratified, there were no prohibitions against abortion anywhere in the United States? The first of those laws wasn't passed for over another thirty years.
I also wonder why, as a proponent of the right to keep the government out of his gun-toting business, he's so offended by Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court rendered its majority decision on the basis of privacy rights inherent in the US Constitution.
seahorse2 wrote:
Cashmere wrote:
Well, if that's how you feel, then why do you get in a dander because George Bush wants to interpret it differently than you?
My dander is up bc the courts interpret the Constitution, not the President. Do you not understand that? It is an absolute check that must not fail. If it fails, we live in a dictatorship.
Again, enviable for its clarity and compellingness. _________________ I can has cheezburger?
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:09 am Post subject: Re: Constitutional crisis brewing
Alright Seahorse, you old warhorse, we'll do this one step at a time so you can't shot gun your response all over the wall.
Everyone else, stay out of this exchange.
Just me and Seahorse.
you wrote:
Quote:
. . . but that does not mean that the Constitution is changed by the decisions, for it is not. The Constitutional framework is only changed by Constitutional amendment, not interpretation.
Ok Seahorse, true or false:
Quote:
1. The Founding Fathers, if you were there to ask them, would have told you that the Constitution they were ratifying did not include the right to an abortion.
[by the way, I disagree with most of the Supreme Court decisions over the last 200 years that involve federal power - I choose Roe v. Wade only because everybody knows the case. If I chose Kelo v. New London, which could be used to make the same point, most people would have no clue what the hell I was discussing. In fact, I don't give a rat's ass about abortion being legal. Legal, not legal, I don't care. It's not an important issue to me at all. Roe v. Wade is relevant to me only because it represents the clearest example of Judicial Legislation]. _________________ Massive Human Dieoff must occur as a result of Peak Oil. Many more than half will die. It will occur everywhere, including where you live. If you fail to recognize this, then your odds of living move toward the "going to die" group.
Joined: Jun 26, 2007 Posts: 1461 Location: The Canada of America
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:38 am Post subject: Re: Constitutional crisis brewing
Cashmere wrote:
Roe v. Wade is relevant to me only because it represents the clearest example of Judicial Legislation.
It wasn't legislation; it didn't call for a cent in expropriations, it didn't direct the executive branch to follow any instructions not already existing, nor did it codify fines or penalties for non-compliance. What it was, in fact, was simply an instruction to the courts that absolute bans on abortion were ultra vires and did not have the force of law and a recognition that the privacy provisions of the Constitution vetoed such legislation in the first place. _________________ I can has cheezburger?
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:09 am Post subject: Re: Constitutional crisis brewing
Quote:
Ok Seahorse, true or false:
Quote:
1. The Founding Fathers, if you were there to ask them, would have told you that the Constitution they were ratifying did not include the right to an abortion.
Now, if you have their phone number, I will call them and ask them. But even then, their opinion has no greater weight now than yours or mine, because we have three branches of government, not four. You are attempting to assert in a clause "WWTFFD" what would the founding fathers do?
Since it can never be known what dead men would do or think, its inadmissible "speculation", but there is a greater danger for us to try and make decisions based on what we think dead men would do or say. Our forefathers, in fact, warned against this danger, which is the danger posed by "hereditary government." Thomas Paine wrote extensively on the immorality of what he called "hereditary" government, which is a government that attempts to enslave the minds of the living to any rule, law, or moral of the past. Thomas Jefferson was no different, and neither is our Constitution. Our Constitution was an attempt to destroy this idea of hereditary government and forever free the living to govern themselves without the shackles of the past.
The framework of the Constitution is an American "Monticello." People often marveled at the architecture and design of Jefferson's home called Monticello, but overlook the fact that the greatest piece of architecture left to to the American people was the design of the Constitution, which often painfully requires us to think and govern ourselves. We may have family pictures hanging on the walls of Jefferson and the like, but they cannot answer our questions, no matter how often we ask, nor would they want to, for this is our time. As Paine once said,
Quote:
When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Constitutional crisis brewing
So you won't answer the question? _________________ Massive Human Dieoff must occur as a result of Peak Oil. Many more than half will die. It will occur everywhere, including where you live. If you fail to recognize this, then your odds of living move toward the "going to die" group.
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
