Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 72
Thanks Tree49Thanks

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

  1. #51
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    64,780
    Thanks
    32861

    From
    Vulcan
    Neither "originalism" nor "living document" - depending on how the terms are used - is a fundamentally valid method of constitutional interpretation, IMO. Rather, I find them often used to either justify a result one already wanted to reach, or to attempt to invalidate the opposing view via reductio ad absurdum. It is rather ridiculous.
    Thanks from MaryAnne, Jets and boontito

  2. #52
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    50,735
    Thanks
    36267

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    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. Instead of laws we have 9 people in robes making laws based on current social experiments invented by a Liberal Utopia. The SC would be puppets for the Liberal agenda. Fortunately what Trump is doing now will prevent that from happening for generations
    Good one! Just like a Republican Court decided to stop the recount on the Gore/ Bush election with the tiny added bit,”This is a one time decision to CTA?”
    Thanks from Friday13 and Ian Jeffrey

  3. #53
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    55,821
    Thanks
    3054

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    It would frighten me to put anyone from the 18th century in charge of the 21st century, yes.
    So you are saying those that wrote the Constitution should be ignored? Who establishes law if we do that? Not the legislative branch, but judges? That mean our laws are determined by a justice rather then the Constitution. That could change by the parties power. You sure you want that?

  4. #54
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    55,821
    Thanks
    3054

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by MaryAnne View Post
    Good one! Just like a Republican Court decided to stop the recount on the Gore/ Bush election with the tiny added bit,”This is a one time decision to CTA?”
    Gore lost based on votes, just like Hillary did

  5. #55
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,557
    Thanks
    37114

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    You conflated the original case with the one that overturned it. Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 overturned Plessy v. Ferguson from 1896.
    I didn't conflate them--I contrasted them. Note that "Plessy" and "Brown" are in italics, a single word representing the whole title (which is common) but the "vs." is not.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  6. #56
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,557
    Thanks
    37114

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    So you are saying those that wrote the Constitution should be ignored?
    Of course not. But THEY didn't believe that their wisdom would be timely for all time.
    Who establishes law if we do that? Not the legislative branch, but judges? That mean our laws are determined by a justice rather then the Constitution.
    Actually, that's what the Constitution says should happen, since the Constitution doesn't mean anything if it isn't interpreted by justices.
    That could change by the parties power. You sure you want that?
    It's happening right now.

  7. #57
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,339
    Thanks
    4096

    From
    Boise, ID
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    No, the Constitution is what it is
    What's that mean?

    but the context around it has changed in ways it's writers couldn't possibly imagine.
    Maybe they could have imagined it, maybe they couldn't have. I think it's clear they did imagine the Constitution needing to evolve. I.e. the document to change. I.e. be amended.

    Actually, most national constitutions are ponderously long documents. The fact that ours has lasted longer than any other written constitution is a tribute to it's simplicity, and to the fact that courts can interpret it differently in different times. We have quite famous and useful changes in decisions, like Plessy vs. Brown, that result from new research into the nature of things. We have others, like the one upholding Japanese internment, that have never been overturned by have been repeatedly repudiated, even in a decision this year. And there are others, like the very dreadful Lochner decision that eroded over time. It's the courts ability to keep the Constitution's ideas working in a completely different world that have allowed it to survive these 225 years or so.

    No, they should interpret the Constitution in its context, which is the present, not the 18th century.
    I don't think they necessarily don't interpret it in the present context. But we can't always throw out the "context" card to arbitrarily declare that an act which seems in direct violation of a basic right is okay based on any given circumstances. That pliability really negates the point of a Supreme Court.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 12th July 2018 at 12:39 PM.

  8. #58
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    64,780
    Thanks
    32861

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    So you are saying those that wrote the Constitution should be ignored? Who establishes law if we do that? Not the legislative branch, but judges? That mean our laws are determined by a justice rather then the Constitution. That could change by the parties power. You sure you want that?
    This does not make sense.


  9. #59
    Established Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    4,081
    Thanks
    1158

    From
    South FL
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    What's that mean?



    Maybe they could have imagined it, maybe they couldn't have. I think it's clear they did imagine the Constitution needing to evolve. I.e. the document to change. I.e. be amended.



    I don't think they necessarily don't interpret it in the present context. But we can't always throw out the "context" card to arbitrarily declare that an act which seems in direct violation of a basic right is okay based on any given circumstances really negates the point of a Supreme Court.
    Liberals are simply uninterested in a limited government of enumerated powers. As a consequence liberals will almost invariably undermine: 1. Originalism and 2. The Federalist Papers because because both conclusively explode the modern, and of course prevailing, interpretation of the Constitution that arose in the New Deal as a result of FDR threatening to pack the court.

    Madisonian v Hamiltonian interpretation of the Constitution facially sounds like a legitimate disagreement until one tries to reconcile the Hamiltonian interpretation with what Hamilton actually said and wrote at Philadelphia Convention, NY Ratifying Convention and the Federalist Papers. The Hamiltonian interpretation is bootstrapped out of the Report on Manufacturers, a full 4 years after the Philadelphia Convention.

    "Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents." Cardozo in Helvering v Davis

    And that's the difference between a government whose powers are "few and defined" versus one whose powers are "numerous and indefinite"

    And no, there's really no going back......
    Last edited by publius3; 12th July 2018 at 12:12 PM.

  10. #60
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,339
    Thanks
    4096

    From
    Boise, ID
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    Liberals are simply uninterested in a limited government of enumerated powers. As a consequence liberals will almost invariably undermine: 1. Originalism and 2. The Federalist Papers because because both conclusively explode the modern, and of course prevailing, interpretation of the Constitution that arose in the New Deal as a result of FDR threatening to pack the court.

    Madisonian v Hamiltonian interpretation of the Constitution facially sounds like a legitimate disagreement until one tries to reconcile the Hamiltonian interpretation with what Hamilton actually said and wrote at Philadelphia Convention, NY Ratifying Convention and the Federalist Papers. The Hamiltonian interpretation is bootstrapped out of the Report on Manufacturers, a full 4 years after the Philadelphia Convention.

    "Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents." Cardozo in Helvering v Davis

    And that's the difference between a government whose powers are "few and defined" versus one whose powers are "numerous and indefinite"

    And no, there's really no going back......
    Seems like very well-informed comments.

    "Please don't emanate in the penumbras."

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 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