this is a nation of laws. love it or leave it.
Tu Stultus Es
Or ignore the ones you don't like.eleven bravo wrote:
this is a nation of laws. love it or leave it.
you have no constitution
Tu Stultus Es
UK has a Queen, as does Australia, why would they need a constitution?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-10-30 04:40:05)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
I'm glad.eleven bravo wrote:
you have no constitution
yeah, that's a good thingjord wrote:
I'm glad.eleven bravo wrote:
you have no constitution
constitutional originalists are the worst fucking excuse for judges in the modern civilized world.
supreme court hi-jacking right-wing fucking nutjobs. faux legal ideology. utter bollocks.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
the Tea Party seems to be pushing that...Uzique wrote:
yeah, that's a good thingjord wrote:
I'm glad.eleven bravo wrote:
you have no constitution
constitutional originalists are the worst fucking excuse for judges in the modern civilized world.
supreme court hi-jacking right-wing fucking nutjobs. faux legal ideology. utter bollocks.
yep it's just the legal and judicial manifestation of extreme conservatism
the tea-party are what i'd call the cultural and social face of such an ideology
the tea-party are what i'd call the cultural and social face of such an ideology
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
No kidding... they're like fucking creationists.Uzique wrote:
yeah, that's a good thingjord wrote:
I'm glad.eleven bravo wrote:
you have no constitution
constitutional originalists are the worst fucking excuse for judges in the modern civilized world.
supreme court hi-jacking right-wing fucking nutjobs. faux legal ideology. utter bollocks.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-10-31 12:48:04)
I sincerely hope that the last 5 posts were meant to be sarcastic.
The problem is not that this is a nation of lawyers. The problem is that too many of the lawyers and judges in this nation believe that they can selectively enforce, manipulate, and reinterpret existing laws without following the constitution's original intent. If you want to change a law, then follow the proper protocols. If you don't follow the law when when enacting new law, why should any one else follow the law? Besides, if the law you are trying to pass can't pass legally, you obviously are not representing the the people very well.
The problem is not that this is a nation of lawyers. The problem is that too many of the lawyers and judges in this nation believe that they can selectively enforce, manipulate, and reinterpret existing laws without following the constitution's original intent. If you want to change a law, then follow the proper protocols. If you don't follow the law when when enacting new law, why should any one else follow the law? Besides, if the law you are trying to pass can't pass legally, you obviously are not representing the the people very well.
yeah you know what you're totally right the tyranny of the past is a great principle.
there's judicial precedence as an inviolable legal process... and then there's archaic constitutional originalism
huge gap
there's judicial precedence as an inviolable legal process... and then there's archaic constitutional originalism
huge gap
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
It's not so much constitutional originalism as it is a belief that the judicial branch of our government is in no way shape or form akin to the legislative branch. It's the legislative branches job to create laws. It's the judicial branches job to interpret such laws and decide whether they fit within the boundaries set up by the constitution. If not, they get struck down. This is not a bad thing in the slightest. Cumbersome perhaps, but the onus is on the legislature to either modify the constitution via amendment or to write laws that fall within its scope. It's the only check on tyranny this nation possesses and I for one am glad that it exists.Uzique wrote:
yeah you know what you're totally right the tyranny of the past is a great principle.
there's judicial precedence as an inviolable legal process... and then there's archaic constitutional originalism
huge gap
The constitution is very much a living document and subject to change over time. It's not concrete at all. American liberals complain about it incessantly because they feel it is a major stumbling block between where we are now and the ordered socialist utopia they dream of Why? Because their policies are not popular and they know they will never have the votes necessary to work an amendment. It makes me happy.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The tyranny of the past? That's really vague, but I'm going to assume that you mean slavery and the unequal civil rights up until the 1970s. If you read the constitution you would realize notice that those inequalities were in direct opposition to the constitution. There's nothing in the constitution that explicitly allowed slavery, quite the opposite, in fact. The people who argued in favor of unequal rights were the people who were pretending that the constitution gave them powers over other people when it quite clearly did not. They are the same kind of people who are the problem today. If you want to change the constitution, you need to do it legally. Stop doing what the slaveholders did by pretending that it says things that it clearly does not. By the way, the 13th amendment is entirely unnecessary and redundant. The only reason its there is to shut up the racist theives who were stealing people's rights by misinterpreting the constitution.Uzique wrote:
yeah you know what you're totally right the tyranny of the past is a great principle.
there's judicial precedence as an inviolable legal process... and then there's archaic constitutional originalism
huge gap
I don't understand what you mean by the comment "archaic constitutional originalism". You make it seem like a bad thing to try to interpret a legal document with the original intent in mind. Here's an example of why doing it any other way is a bad idea: Your neighbor writes a will, leaving his house to you in case of his death. 40 years later, he dies, and you should get his house, except, due to excessive use of slag and societal changes, the definition of the word 'house' has been changed to 'refrigerator'. So, the government gets the house and you get your dead neighbor's refrigerator. You think that's fair? If they had gone by the original intent they would have looked at the word 'house' in its original context, and you wouldn't be stuck with a smelly old refrigerator. It only makes sense to use the definition of the word from when it was written. You may call this example extreme, but if you think about it, it's much less significant than the changes our language has gone through in the past 200 years and the chaos this would introduce into our laws. Interpreting a law from anything but its original intent is simply absurd.
Another problem with interpreting law without considering original intent is that you would leave documents powerless against conspiracies involving dictionary publishers and the mass media. You could have a small conspiracy which would just have to change the popular use of a few words, and crash! Change the meaning of the phrase 'bear arms' and suddenly the US constitution says that everyone has the right to the 'smash windows'!
what the fuck are you talking about deadmonkie?
Of course I agree that the constitution is subject to change, but only if it is done in the legal manner, with a 2/3 vote from congress and the house, with 3/4 of the state legislators in agreement.
And, just in case you still are not sold on interpreting laws with original intent in mind, how many of you would read an early modern English text and treat it like a magazine article that was written in the last 50 years. That would be just silly.
And, just in case you still are not sold on interpreting laws with original intent in mind, how many of you would read an early modern English text and treat it like a magazine article that was written in the last 50 years. That would be just silly.
My post wasn't sarcastic...Deadmonkiefart wrote:
I sincerely hope that the last 5 posts were meant to be sarcastic.
The problem is not that this is a nation of lawyers. The problem is that too many of the lawyers and judges in this nation believe that they can selectively enforce, manipulate, and reinterpret existing laws without following the constitution's original intent. If you want to change a law, then follow the proper protocols. If you don't follow the law when when enacting new law, why should any one else follow the law? Besides, if the law you are trying to pass can't pass legally, you obviously are not representing the the people very well.
That is a facepalm statement.Uzique wrote:
yeah you know what you're totally right the tyranny of the past is a great principle.
there's judicial precedence as an inviolable legal process... and then there's archaic constitutional originalism
huge gap
Do you not realize that the Constitution is the original law in the US?
Thus, any law that is created is derived from the Constitution (precedent), and judicial precedence must be applied...all the way back to the Constitution.
There is no fucking gap.
That is what people do not understand. Without the Constitution, there is no law. All legal precedence is derived from the Constitution in this country. That is why the most foundational argument for any given case is constitutionality. If it is deemed unconstitutional, it is thrown out, as no law can be applied against it.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
In most cases the constitution prevented huge expansions of federal power.FEOS wrote:
That is a facepalm statement.Uzique wrote:
yeah you know what you're totally right the tyranny of the past is a great principle.
there's judicial precedence as an inviolable legal process... and then there's archaic constitutional originalism
huge gap
Do you not realize that the Constitution is the original law in the US?
Thus, any law that is created is derived from the Constitution (precedent), and judicial precedence must be applied...all the way back to the Constitution.
There is no fucking gap.
That is what people do not understand. Without the Constitution, there is no law. All legal precedence is derived from the Constitution in this country. That is why the most foundational argument for any given case is constitutionality. If it is deemed unconstitutional, it is thrown out, as no law can be applied against it.
the process of judicial interpretation should always be contextualized and made contemporary
im not denying the right of the constitution to be the highest legal power in the united states
i'm just saying judges should be able to make modern interpretations and, as such, minor amendments
im not denying the right of the constitution to be the highest legal power in the united states
i'm just saying judges should be able to make modern interpretations and, as such, minor amendments
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
That's not their job. That's the job of the legislature.Uzique wrote:
the process of judicial interpretation should always be contextualized and made contemporary
im not denying the right of the constitution to be the highest legal power in the united states
i'm just saying judges should be able to make modern interpretations and, as such, minor amendments
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
but some judges do make modern interpretations of the constitution
thats why the supreme court has 9 judges.RTHKI wrote:
but some judges do make modern interpretations of the constitution
And it's called judicial activism and frowned upon. Most of the reinterpretations get thrown out by higher courts.RTHKI wrote:
but some judges do make modern interpretations of the constitution
The last thing we want is a group of unelected, appointed for life, people to have the ability to enact laws, even indirectly. Might as well have a monarchy then.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-11-01 06:36:47)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Constitutionalism is judicial activism as well; it's just in the opposite direction.JohnG@lt wrote:
And it's called judicial activism and frowned upon. Most of the reinterpretations get thrown out by higher courts.RTHKI wrote:
but some judges do make modern interpretations of the constitution
The last thing we want is a group of unelected, appointed for life, people to have the ability to enact laws, even indirectly. Might as well have a monarchy then.
I would suggest that we end Supreme Court positions as having lifetime terms. They should be staggered terms of some odd number of years.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-11-01 07:03:17)
Not in the slightest. It is upholding the law of the land. As I said, the Constitution is most certainly a living document that can be changed at any time. If you want universal health care write an amendment that expands the scope of government to allow such a thing.Turquoise wrote:
Constitutionalism is judicial activism as well; it's just in the opposite direction.JohnG@lt wrote:
And it's called judicial activism and frowned upon. Most of the reinterpretations get thrown out by higher courts.RTHKI wrote:
but some judges do make modern interpretations of the constitution
The last thing we want is a group of unelected, appointed for life, people to have the ability to enact laws, even indirectly. Might as well have a monarchy then.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat