Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 72
Thanks Tree49Thanks

Thread: Majority of Americans Favor SC Ruling on What Constitution Says Today

  1. #11
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    55,821
    Thanks
    3054

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Sampson Simpson View Post
    that's how law works. Who the is supposed to decide what things mean? You? No, the judges do. Your statement is so idiotic "The problem with this idea is the law could be interpreted to mean whatever the court wants it to be rather then what the Constitution says" What, is the constitution a living person that can talk? Who decides what the constitution says? Judges of course, just like the constitution says

    That is a huge part of law, arguing on the meaning of laws and contracts. You don't get to decide after the fact "hey, I really meant this". law doesn't work that way. The ignorance of the right is astounding
    Then you should like Bret Kavenaugh, he stated he will interpret the Constitution as written. Its more about who you want to interpret the Constitution isn't it? Where does it say in the Constitution that man can marry a man or woman marry a woman? It doesn't , but 9 judges made ruling that now says that. Where does it say a woman can end the life of a fetus in the womb? It doesn't , but 9 justices ruled and now its law. Where does it say a person can't own a gun in the Constitution? It does say you can, but Liberals want 9 justices to say a person can't own a gun. Liberals want a group of puppets they can manipulate to make laws via judicial activism.
    Last edited by aboutenough; 11th July 2018 at 06:58 AM.
    Thanks from carpe diem

  2. #12
    olguy OlGuy's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2016
    Posts
    2,528
    Thanks
    539

    From
    california
    A judge is a judge and a Supreme Court judge rules on the Constitution, I don't see how any judge can get too far afield from the law. However split 4-5 decisions seem almost like the lotto. Decisions should be near unanimous which leads me to think it's not the judges but issues that need to be ruled in. If it's not a blatant violation of the Constitution then the court shouldn't consider it. Less than a half a dozen cases a year should be all that is required for the SC to look at, otherwise everything is legal or decided in the lower courts.

  3. #13
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68,689
    Thanks
    50682

    From
    So. Md.
    "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." ~ Thomas Jefferson
    Thanks from jacobfitcher

  4. #14
    Veteran Member carpe diem's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    29,752
    Thanks
    2911

    From
    San Diego, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    That's why originalism is silly.
    Yeah - Who needs a solid foundation? That's just silly. blue-house.jpg

  5. #15
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68,689
    Thanks
    50682

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by carpe diem View Post
    Yeah - Who needs a solid foundation? That's just silly. blue-house.jpg
    See post #13.

  6. #16
    olguy OlGuy's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2016
    Posts
    2,528
    Thanks
    539

    From
    california
    I think Jefferson would have expected congress to make laws of change of which could be an amendment or even a rewriting of the Constitution, except he probably never expected the congress to become so incapable of doing anything at all.
    Thanks from jacobfitcher

  7. #17
    Nuisance Factor Yeti 8 Jungle Swing Champion, YetiSports 4 - Albatross Overload Champion, YetiSports7 - Snowboard FreeRide Champion, Alu`s Revenge Champion boontito's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    95,652
    Thanks
    73488

    From
    <-- "Meme Boy"
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueneck View Post
    Didn't the SCOTUS just rule on something about cellphones?

    Here we go:



    Supreme Court decides police generally need a warrant to track cell phones

    Interesting case in a lot of ways.



    I can't even imagine how one decides things like these by trying to make some weird analogy between phones and "papers". It just doesn't work.
    This is an outrage!

    The founding fathers were very clear about cellphone data use by law enforcement!
    Thanks from Babba

  8. #18
    Moderator HCProf's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    22,984
    Thanks
    11941

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Both extreme sides of this debate are nonsense. The Constitution does not change meaning over time. Neither is originalism a valid theory, either.
    I think we need to realize that the Constitution is a "living document". It must continue to grow and change as the American populous continues to grow and change.
    Thanks from Babba and jacobfitcher

  9. #19
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    64,780
    Thanks
    32861

    From
    Vulcan
    This thread is getting more and more nonsensical.

    When interpreting the Constitution, one must start with the text. Sometimes you can stop there, sometimes not. It has nothing to do with redefining anything, though naturally underlying principles must be divined in order to apply them to new situations. However, idea behind originalism is not the text, but what the authors and/or ratifiers thought was meant, and that makes no sense either, especially as this could result in contradicting the text. When something is vague, overbroad and/or unclear, investigation is necessary, and opinions about what was being drafted can become relevant to understanding the underlying principles in order to apply them; when analyzing statutes, this is called seeking legislative intent, which is instructive but not conclusive.
    Thanks from Jets, boontito, Blues63 and 2 others

  10. #20
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    64,780
    Thanks
    32861

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by HCProf View Post
    I think we need to realize that the Constitution is a "living document". It must continue to grow and change as the American populous continues to grow and change.
    Well, no. The principles already underlying the text apply to new situations, but the meaning does not change unless there is an amendment.
    Thanks from bajisima

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 15th November 2017, 12:58 PM
  2. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 29th July 2017, 09:09 AM
  3. Replies: 46
    Last Post: 2nd November 2016, 06:51 AM
  4. Numbers Favor Republicans Senate Majority
    By Divine Wind in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 17th February 2013, 03:19 PM
  5. 8-1 USSC Ruling in Favor of Kansas Anti-Gay Church
    By Singularity in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 5th March 2011, 05:39 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed