Bill of rights
Seems these have been forgotten
Quote:
Employment, with a living wage,
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies,
Housing,
Medical care,
Education, and,
Social security
![]() |
Bill of rights
Seems these have been forgotten
Quote:
Employment, with a living wage,
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies,
Housing,
Medical care,
Education, and,
Social security
Hi Speech,
I am not suggesting that words can mean whatever we want them to.
What I am saying is that words do change to suit the times. In other words, over time words change their meaning and may bear little resemblance. The word, 'passion' springs to mind. Two hundred and fifty years ago this word had a different meaning as to how we now understand the word. Language has evolved and continues to evolve.
In relation to 'original intent'. It is very difficult to argue for original intent when the word, 'intent' itself is difficult to define. Does it mean the founding fathers wrote the constitution deliberately, purposefully or intentionally.
One might think that it doesn't really matter because these words mean the same thing. Well actually they don't. The more we delve into the meanings of words, the less precise they become.
Tut
Yup a 'Looking Glass World'
Judge Humpty Dumpty took the book and looked at it carefully. 'That seems to be done right —' he began.
'You're holding it upside down!' Alice interrupted.
'To be sure I was!' Judge Humpty Dumpty said gaily as she turned it round for him. 'I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right — though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now — and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents —'
'Certainly,' said Alice.
'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Judge Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Judge Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Judge Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
If you don't know where you are going any road will take you there
Hello again, tom:
All your poetry aside, SOMEBODY has to decide WHAT the Constitution says - somebody in the three co-equal branches of government... I'm NOT happy with the Supreme Court doing it, but they're much BETTER equipped than the other two.
Look. The IDEA behind a lifetime appointment is that they'll be FREE from political pressure... In some instances, that happens. In others, it doesn't. But, for SURE, the president and the congress are subject to political pressures.
I'll ask again, do you want to risk your gun rights to the political whims of the day.. I don't think you do. I surly don't.
excon
All it takes is some judge using a 21st century definition of what a 'militia' is to do that . I'll take my chances on the popular will . At least that's democratic .Quote:
I'll ask again, do you want to risk your gun rights to the political whims of the day.. I don't think you do. I surly don't.
All it took was a couple judges deciding that a Texas law was wrong to set off a legal genocide of 50 million babies.
All it took was 5 judges to decide that it was perfectly OK to confiscate people's property and hand it over to developers who wanted to build condo's..
All it took was a few judges to say that a free black man was not free anymore. All that did was set off a civil war.
All it took was a few judges to decide that a farmer couldn't grow food on his own land for his own consumption without paying taxes on it as if he had sold it.
I'm not saying we don't need judges . I'm saying their power has grow far beyond what was intended where now they have become a branch with superior powers over the rest of the government . Newt is right on this one . I may not subscribe to some of his over the top rhetoric as to remedies.. But he isn't that far off.
Hi Tom Can you intrept the Magna Carta in the language of the time and put it in today's circumstance. Much of it is meaningless today and no doubt those who framed the Constitution though so at that time. Today your Constitution must be intrepreted for the circumstances of today, otherwise you are contravening it every day, To argue that a 21st Century person must intrepret it according to eighteenth century meaning and customs goes beyond reason.
Anyway I agree with you the supreme court justices have become kings by any other meaning
Hello again, tom:
Let me see. Under your scenario, your gun rights would be safe under a Republican.. But, when a Democrat is elected - down goes gun rights.. But, don't throw 'em away, because you're going to elect a Republican the next time... Unless you get raided by a Democrat lead BATF first.
These days the cops can't torture confessions out of suspects.. But, under a Republican, I'm SURE that'll be cool.. But, after we torture and convict 1,000's, we elect a Democrat who says that we can't torture anymore and lets them all out. Then he prosecutes the torturers. When the torturers are in jail, and we elect a Republican, they'll get out, and the other guys will be prosecuted... and so on, and so on...
And, it'll be WORSE than that, too.
excon
Ah, if you are talking LANGUAGE and INTENT then I would see this is two different issues.
I don't want to be a party pooper but I would see, 'original intent' as a non-starter. I will go along with the claim that one author can have an original intent but I don't see how a large number delegates involved in a drafting can have an original intent. I would say the intent would be a compromise in most cases, There is no original intent in a compromise.
Secondly, I don't think judges are interested in how legislation comes about. It wouldn't really matter if the office lady prompted the delegates with a possible solution. All that matters is that you have a constitution or final product.
Which brings me to my third point. I think it would be more profitable to focus on the language aspect rather than intent. Yes, language has evolved and will continue to evolve. At the moment there is nothing we can do about that. However, it is possible to argue that while a word or phrase means something different today in some cases we can be very confident we know the historical significance of a word. While I think this pursuit would be more fruitful. However, I agree with Clete, in that this poses a problem of contravention.
I also agree on your comment about judges.
Tut
But that my friend is exactly the problem . We don't have an uninterested and impartial judiciary here. We have justices who are selected over their degree of empathy and (although it is denied ) their political leaning . It makes for a bad brew if they are the"final" arbiters in a supposedly intentionally divided government with equal branches .Quote:
I don't think judges are interested in how legislation comes about. It wouldn't really matter if the office lady prompted the delegates with a possible solution. All that matters is that you have a constitution or final product.
They are not robots ;they bring the same human weaknesses into the office that everyone else has. They have not locked up wisdom and virtue. With lifetime appointments many of them are feeble physically and mentally . Many have been chosen to serve ;not because of a demonstrated understanding of the law ,but as patronage appointments .
And it is often reflected in their decisions.
Add to that ,the FACT that beyond their decisions ,they have frequently imposed solutions . That makes them more than judges but defacto totalitarian executives and legislators . I find NO evidence that the founders intended them to have such power ;and it's high time their wings were clipped .
Hi Tom,
As as far as your above comments are concerned all I can say from my point of view is that you are preaching to the converted. I know the founding fathers didn't intend things should turn out this way but they have. We live in an imperfect word. What is the answer? I don't really know.
The way things are at the moment someone has to make a call. I know you will be unhappy with this but perhaps you could draw your SCOTUS judges from an international pool of judges who have served on high courts in their countries and are knowledgeable or have qualifications in the area of constitutional law. In other words, merit based selection. Tenure would be limited, but numeration would be high.
Other than that I have no other ideas.
Tut
?? No way!Quote:
from an international pool of judges
Here's the deal. If the only people you can count on is an unelected judicial oligarchy and a permanent bureaucratic civil service force then democracy (or Republicanism ) is a failed experiment . We might just as well go back to a system of enlightened monarchs and their princes.
This is my argument... They may or may not have forseen these days . What they did know is that things change and they therefore gave us a method to change the Constitution. It is a democratic way. It does not depend on anything else than what we think the power of the government should be ;and what our rights are.Quote:
I know the founding fathers didn't intend things should turn out this way but they have.
If today we think that any of the amendments have not stood the test of time then we have means to change them that do NOT rely on the sole disgression of the wisdom of the only unelected branch. That includes an update to take into account the evolution of language . For that matter there is a provision to scrap the whole thing and start over.
I can state from my reading of history that the most contentious issues in our nation have been inflamed more often than not by the judiciary .
They are elected . I can't help it if you don't trust the electoral process. I know if they blow it they can be removed . I trust them more than Anthony Kennedy's shifting positions.
Hello again, tom:
In other words, you're willing to put your rights up for a vote. I'm not.
excon
PS> Can you imagine a Republican debate AFTER your policy is adopted? The first candidate say's if suspects don't confess after 1 hour, he'll beat it out of them.. The next one says, he'll do it in 45 minutes... The next will bid lower still..
The last guy, since he can get rid of our rights to due process, say's he'll just have the cops hold court on the street.
excon
Somehow I knew you were going to say that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomder55
I guess that happens when you put all of your eggs in a ballot box, so to speak. I know I am not being very helpful but there are certain limitations to what voting can achieve. Sometime voting doesn't provide a solution but will exacerbate the problem.
Tut
Or any judge who thinks your gun rights mean that the individual states can form a National Guard. If your elected officials decide that ;you have the remedy of going to court. If the judge decides that and imposes the remedy that guns should be confiscated what would you do ? Where is the remedy when that judge imposes that ?
Hello tom:
If you want to criticize the process, at least tell the truth about the process. There's 39 judges who'll consider it. That's the trial judge, the 29 judges in the 9th Circuit Appellate Division, and the 9 Supreme Court Justices.. That's quite a bit different than your characterization of "any" judge.
These are JUDGES who have appointments for LIFE and are NOT subject to political whim and fancy... YOU, on the other hand, want to hand over Constitutional authority to congress or the president, who are ABSOLUTELY subject to political whim.
You think it's BETTER to give politicians that power instead of judges.. I can't imagine HOW you think that will PRESERVE ANY RIGHTS - and I mean ANY. Of course, the only one you care about is the 2nd.. Maybe you HATE the others so much you're willing to sacrifice the one you do like.
You certainly have to know that the Gingrich proposition will END the Bill of Rights - ALL of 'em!
excon
You are the one who brought up the 2nd. Me , I say there was a single judge or a handful of them in SCOTUS that decided a Texas law was unconstitutional ,and imposed a national remedy, that led to the genocide of 50 million + babies that continues today .
As far as I can tell ,every suggestion by Newt is a Constitutional remedy to rogue judges and their decisions. Tell me the one that isn't .Quote:
You certainly have to know that the Gingrich proposition will END the Bill of Rights - ALL of 'em!
By the way ex, I watched that debate and when Ron Paul spoke I could have sworn it was you. Are you really Ron Paul?
BTW Watch Iowa . The Ronulans are going to be bused in from out of state and infiltrate the caucuses... just like the Obots did in all the 2008 caucus states (at least according to the claim by the Clintoon campaign) .
Hello again, Steve:
From YOUR viewpoint, Citizens United... Why?? Because you AGREE with it... From mine, it was rogue judges at their finest...
Let me ask you this.. If Obama DID what Newt says he can do, and he decides to gather up your guns, because he doesn't like what some "rogue" judge did, are you going to lay back, or are you going to be screaming about your Constitutional rights?
You don't have to answer. What is it about this that is SOOOOO hard to get? YOU too have an investment in the Bill of Rights.
excon
I have long asseted that judges have way too much power. I don't care who the President we are talking about . The President is accountable to the people and to Congress ;and to the courts . The courts are accountable to no one. Therein lies the real threat to liberty.
Nonsense. The Bill of rights, if anything ,get watered down by judicial decisions . Let me wear your shoes for a minute. The Courts consistently confirmed the Patriot Act and did not overturn any of it despite the claim you make of it's eroding of your 4th amendment rights . So which branch from your view was the greater threat ? Congress can change majorities and scrap whole legislations with a vote. The Courts lock them in stone ,or reject them ,regardless of the will of the people .
I'll say it again. The Bill of Rights came about only because of the amendment process... which meant they were voted on by the elected representatives of the people .They did not happpen because of some judges decree. And that's the way it is.
I still ask .Which one of Newt's suggestions are unconstitutional... answer... none.. We just have had very few Presidents willing to exercise their constitutional checks over the courts .
1. Tell me where in the Constitution does it say that the President has to enforce Court decisions . As an example ;Lincoln absolutely refused to enforce the provisions of the Dred Scott decision.
Here is what he said about the case:
Example 2 Roosevelt decided to have a tribunal for German saboteures .Quote:
[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
He said this :
So there are 2 distinct examples where the President using inherent Article 2 powers as chief law enforcement officer and Commander in Chief disregarded the rulings of the court .Quote:
They will be tried in a military court, they will be executed, it should happen within three weeks, and tell the Supreme Court if they issue a writ of habeas corpus, I will not honor it, and therefore they should not issue it. I am the commander in chief in wartime. They aren't.
2. I am puzzled . You don't get that the court is but a coequal branch with the executive and legislature and that if the executive and legislature teamed up that they have remedies against the imperial judiciary?
Ok here is another example . John Adams packed the court full of Federalist judges before he surrendered the Presidency to Jefferson... When Jefferson came in he couldn't overturn the appointments ;so he abolished the judicial seats they were appointed to. Again... perfectly constitutional.
With Congress he can begin impeachments of individual judges ,and remove whole districts if they choose to do so.(Article III, section 2, clause 2 ) Only the Supreme Court is constitutionally mandated..
Congress has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. That means legislation can provide that the federal courts would have no jurisdiction, for example, to hear cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Congress has the authority to subpoena judges to explain their decisions . Congress can defund any court it choses except SCOTUS .
That's just a start the top of my head. So yes ;the elected bodies through their checks and balances can limit the power of the judiciary if they choose to do so.
Hello again, tom:
It's SPIN except for the last sentence.
For a moment, though, let's assume congress DID abolish all other courts EXCEPT the Supreme Court. Article 3, Section 2, speaking of the power of the court, says "The judicial power shall extend to ALL cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States...."
If the Supreme Court was the only one left, it would STILL be constitutionally bound to hear the same cases a lower court would, IF there WERE a lower court. Constitutionally, congress can't limit their agenda. Plus, the Constitution doesn't give congress ANY power to subpoena judges. Where does it say that?? You made that up..
Specifically, congress, pursuant to Article 3, Section 1, speaking of the inferior courts, "...MAY from time to time ordain and establish." It say's NOTHING about their ability to interfere or subpoena.. It MAY establish, and it MAY DIS-establish. That's it. Everything else, is made up.
So, even if there were ONLY the Supreme Court, congress could NOT prevent it from hearing cases that involve the laws of the land, and that would INCLUDE DOMA.
Finally, your first question... It doesn't SAY the president has to enforce court decisions.. It only ESTABLISHES the court. But, I find it incredulous to the max to believe the authors of Constitution set up a CO-EQUAL branch of government that nobody had to obey.
You're way off base in your constitutional law.
excon
I disagree . The Senate can call all the appointees it confirms through advice and consent . Do you think Judges are somehow members of some super branch above all accounting ? Now there is a good case that could be argued that individual Associate Justices of SCOTUS couldn't be ; or that if it happened could create a constitutional crisis... but that protection certainly ends with the lower courts .Quote:
Constitutionally, congress can't limit their agenda. Plus, the Constitution doesn't give congress ANY power to subpoena judges. Where does it say that?? You made that up..
Whether that would be a good political move is a different question . The subpoena power is an inherent power of Congress ;part of the legitimate function of their work and to claim judges are immune creates a superior unequal branch .
I am tired of this image of judges as some kind of ritualistic secular priesthood who's decrees are beyond question . Almost all of them are political patronage appointees who climbed up the ranks from slip and fall status . A good share of them are lazy incompetent and autocratic who often rarely see the inside pages of a briefing book;and even less often do their own independent research. . I don't understand why you would put such faith in them. Most of them are rubber stamps of the local prosecutor . For this effort they are granted greater job security than a tenued teacher ? Give me a break!
As to the Executive's power to ignore court decisions ;that is established by history and confirming judicial precedence . The only way the judges could force the executive to comply would be through the cooperation of Congress and the impeachment process .
Now Newt will not get anywhere with this stand ;but he has brought up a very important issue that the nation should address. If we want and are comfortable with an imperial judiciary then the Constitution should be amended to grant them this power.
The country lasted 20 years before Chief Justice Marshall imposed this system on us and survived .It would've done just as well without Marbury v Madison and probably a lot better .
Hello again, tom:
Couple things.. The courts have subpoena power too. Would you like to see a pissing match between the courts and congress? They're a CO-EQUAL branch. I don't think they'll lay down for congress. I surly wouldn't.
Secondarily, I DON'T put my faith in judges, but if the alternative is to put my faith in politicians, I'll stick with judges.
excon
I don't think it's either or . The best is to have the least necessary to protect liberty and preserve civil society.
Yes Tom that equals vigilantes roaming the streets
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:47 AM. |