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.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-10-30 04:40:05)
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
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.
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)
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 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
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
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.
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
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
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-11-01 06:36:47)
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.
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.