New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The original tea party on the constitution...

jammer

Mayor
Ol' Barney shows almost as much knowledge of the Constitution as most of the rightwingers who post here, actually more than most.
 

Abatis

Council Member
Is this what the left considers reasoned discourse on the Constitution?

If any side demonstrates profound ignorance of constitutional principles it is the left.

The tenets of conferred powers and retained rights is completely lost on them . . .
 

TaiPan

Council Member
Is this what the left considers reasoned discourse on the Constitution?

If any side demonstrates profound ignorance of constitutional principles it is the left.

The tenets of conferred powers and retained rights is completely lost on them . . .
Then read it, not with a mind closed to the idea that it a living document. A precious crafting not of a straight jacket, but a comfortable suit able to meet the demands of the past but adaptable to the present, and willing to move forward with the future. Then you are an American.

Tai Pan
 

Abatis

Council Member
Then read it, not with a mind closed to the idea that it a living document
The "living document" canard is nothing but an excuse to ignore the principles of the document.


"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. . . ."

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137, 176-177 (1803)​


Like I said, fundamental permanent constitutional principles such as the tenets of conferred powers and retained rights are lost on the left . . .
 

TaiPan

Council Member
The "living document" canard is nothing but an excuse to ignore the principles of the document.


"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. . . ."

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137, 176-177 (1803)​


Like I said, fundamental permanent constitutional principles such as the tenets of conferred powers and retained rights are lost on the left . . .
Sorry but if the constitution is not subject to change why has it been amended so many time. The Constitution is not a static document. It is a framework under which this nation operates. Were we to strip the constitution of everything but the Bill of Rights which by definition are the first 10 Amendments, i.e. change, additions, whatever you want to call them, the country we live in today would be much different, but not necessarily better. Under your theory the unamended version would preclude more than 50% of the citizenry from voting !

It is no canard that the Constitution is a living document, and only because it is do we enjoy a vibrant and free society that has the room for discussions such as these. Throw off your blinders, Marbury v Madison established 3 key principles that were not "written" into the Constitution explicitly: 1) it established the co-equal and independent status of the judiciary. 2) It defined the role of the judiciary within the structure of the government. 3) It established the unfettered authority of the judiciary to interpret and define the laws of this country and the meaning of the Constitution itself.

Tai Pan.
 

Abatis

Council Member
Sorry but if the constitution is not subject to change why has it been amended so many time.
It strikes me that you don't know what the 'living constitution" doctrine is . . .

That there is a specified process (thus excluding all other processes) to alter the Constitution proves that it is not a "living document".

The Constitution is not a static document.
It is until altered following the process set out in Article V.

There is no other legitimate way to alter the Constitution and yes, I am including inventive judicial opinions.

It is a framework under which this nation operates.
Precisely. And the framework is not subject to reconsideration, tweaking or "adapting to the present" because someone thinks they are no longer applicable to our modern, enlightened condition. The Article V process is the only manner for tweaking or "adapting to the present" . . .

Under your theory the unamended version would preclude more than 50% of the citizenry from voting !
Me saying the Constitution is not a "living constitution" does not mean I am arguing the Constitution is unchangeable. The Constitutional recognition of the right to vote of Blacks and Women with the federal requirement that states respect that right, was established using the correct and proper Article V process of altering the Constitution. It wasn't conjured into existence and decreed as the law of the land . . . as the "living document" doctrine would allow.

Throw off your blinders, Marbury v Madison established 3 key principles that were not "written" into the Constitution explicitly: 1) it established the co-equal and independent status of the judiciary. 2) It defined the role of the judiciary within the structure of the government. 3) It established the unfettered authority of the judiciary to interpret and define the laws of this country and the meaning of the Constitution itself.
Unfettered authority of the judiciary?

Well, there's proof that you either never read the case or are just purposefully ignoring what it says to serve your anti-Constitution agenda.



"[T]he framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: 'I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.'

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? . . .

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137, 179-180 (1803)​
 

ya-ta-hey

Mayor
Mr. Wooly,

You do realize that the Andy Griffith show was a sit-com, not a reality show, right? I mean, Don Knotts was reading a script written by comedy writers, not espousing personal knowledge and belief.

You often suprise me, my friend, in that some time you seem marginally intelligent, only to be fooled by a TV show.
 

TaiPan

Council Member
One other point re Marbury v Madison, For the first time in the history of the Constitution, a branch of the government took upon itself an "implied power" of the Constitution, Under Marbury v Madison the court took unto itself the power to declare laws unconstituional. It said in essence in its decision, that Yes Mr Marbury you re entitled yo your commission, however the law under which you seek its enforcement is unconstitutional. Now you find anywhere in the Constitution where such power is granted to the court. You won't find it. It is an implied power, defined by the court as solely its own..


Liberals respect the constitution, they have little respect however for those who would turn back the clock and relegate it to a straight jacket.

Tai Pan
 

TaiPan

Council Member
It strikes me that you don't know what the 'living constitution" doctrine is . . .

That there is a specified process (thus excluding all other processes) to alter the Constitution proves that it is not a "living document".

So by your reasoning because there is a process and a procedure, something is therefore dead. There is a process for properly calculating a course to the moon, and said process must be update with differing calculation parameters so therefore the calculation is devoid of life in the form or corrected data points. I'm not driving across town with you.

It is until altered following the process set out in Article V.

There is no other legitimate way to alter the Constitution and yes, I am including inventive judicial opinions.



Precisely. And the framework is not subject to reconsideration, tweaking or "adapting to the present" because someone thinks they are no longer applicable to our modern, enlightened condition. The Article V process is the only manner for tweaking or "adapting to the present" . . .

Now all of that flies in the face of 223 years of jurisprudence. I believe it was onlr recently that we were discussing Plessy v Fergusen and Brown v Board of Education,. Isn't it amazing that two different courts considering essentially the same issue decided the constitution meant two significantly different things. Both were 14th Amendment cases, and to my knowledge in the intervening years, the 14th amendment had not been altered.

Me saying the Constitution is not a "living constitution" does not mean I am arguing the Constitution is unchangeable. The Constitutional recognition of the right to vote of Blacks and Women with the federal requirement that states respect that right, was established using the correct and proper Article V process of altering the Constitution. It wasn't conjured into existence and decreed as the law of the land . . . as the "living document" doctrine would allow.

o goddy, goody. So the Bill of Rights is inadequate to address all issues of National consequence.Yeah you are getting the point, because under your logic thus far interstate commerce would not exist.

Unfettered authority of the judiciary?

Well, there's proof that you either never read the case or are just purposefully ignoring what it says to serve your anti-Constitution agenda.

Suffuce to say short exer[s of the decision are inadequate to explore the full scope of the decision which I have addressed in two other posts.

"[T]he framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: 'I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.'

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? . . .

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.


It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137, 179-180 (1803)​
Which is precisely the point I made elsewhere. Nowhere in the constitution is the power granted. Note the terms "particular phraseology" There is no particular phraseology empowering the court to declare a law unconstitutional. It is an implied power derived by this court based upon its understanding of the intent of the founders. Once the court chose to act upon the power and congress and the people acceded to it the power devolved unto the court. But a specific tasking of the court with this power is nowhere mentioned in the constitution as devolving upon the court.
 

TaiPan

Council Member
It strikes me that you don't know what the 'living constitution" doctrine is . . .

That there is a specified process (thus excluding all other processes) to alter the Constitution proves that it is not a "living document".

So by your reasoning because there is a process and a procedure, something is therefore dead. There is a process for properly calculating a course to the moon, and said process must be update with differing calculation parameters so therefore the calculation is devoid of life in the form or corrected data points. I'm not driving across town with you.

It is until altered following the process set out in Article V.

There is no other legitimate way to alter the Constitution and yes, I am including inventive judicial opinions.



Precisely. And the framework is not subject to reconsideration, tweaking or "adapting to the present" because someone thinks they are no longer applicable to our modern, enlightened condition. The Article V process is the only manner for tweaking or "adapting to the present" . . .

Now all of that flies in the face of 223 years of jurisprudence. I believe it was onlr recently that we were discussing Plessy v Fergusen and Brown v Board of Education,. Isn't it amazing that two different courts considering essentially the same issue decided the constitution meant two significantly different things. Both were 14th Amendment cases, and to my knowledge in the intervening years, the 14th amendment had not been altered.

Me saying the Constitution is not a "living constitution" does not mean I am arguing the Constitution is unchangeable. The Constitutional recognition of the right to vote of Blacks and Women with the federal requirement that states respect that right, was established using the correct and proper Article V process of altering the Constitution. It wasn't conjured into existence and decreed as the law of the land . . . as the "living document" doctrine would allow.

o goddy, goody. So the Bill of Rights is inadequate to address all issues of National consequence.Yeah you are getting the point, because under your logic thus far interstate commerce would not exist.

Unfettered authority of the judiciary?

Well, there's proof that you either never read the case or are just purposefully ignoring what it says to serve your anti-Constitution agenda.

Suffuce to say short exer[s of the decision are inadequate to explore the full scope of the decision which I have addressed in two other posts.

"[T]he framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: 'I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.'

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? . . .

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.


It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137, 179-180 (1803)​
Which is precisely the point I made elsewhere. Nowhere in the constitution is the power granted. Note the terms "particular phraseology" There is no particular phraseology empowering the court to declare a law unconstitutional. It is an implied power derived by this court based upon its understanding of the intent of the founders. Once the court chose to act upon the power and congress and the people acceded to it the power devolved unto the court. But a specific tasking of the court with this power is nowhere mentioned in the constitution as devolving upon the court.
 

ElGringo

Mayor
One other point re Marbury v Madison, For the first time in the history of the Constitution, a branch of the government took upon itself an "implied power" of the Constitution, Under Marbury v Madison the court took unto itself the power to declare laws unconstituional. It said in essence in its decision, that Yes Mr Marbury you re entitled yo your commission, however the law under which you seek its enforcement is unconstitutional. Now you find anywhere in the Constitution where such power is granted to the court. You won't find it. It is an implied power, defined by the court as solely its own..


Liberals respect the constitution, they have little respect however for those who would turn back the clock and relegate it to a straight jacket.

Tai Pan
I'm not going to claim to be a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar but using your logic anything Congress passes would be Constitutional, even if it isn't. I don't understand why you have a problem with the implied powers, the whole point of the Constitution is checks and balances on power between the branches of government and Article III clearly assigns a special status to the Supreme Court. If a citizen thinks a law is un-constitutional and takes the case to court and it ends up in front of the Supreme Court what is the USSC supposed to say? We're sorry Mr. Citizen, we agree with you that the law is wrong but there's no controlling legal authority in this country for striking down laws which obviously conflict with the supreme law of the land, so you're screwed?
 

fairsheet

Senator
I'm not going to claim to be a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar but using your logic anything Congress passes would be Constitutional, even if it isn't. I don't understand why you have a problem with the implied powers, the whole point of the Constitution is checks and balances on power between the branches of government and Article III clearly assigns a special status to the Supreme Court. If a citizen thinks a law is un-constitutional and takes the case to court and it ends up in front of the Supreme Court what is the USSC supposed to say? We're sorry Mr. Citizen, we agree with you that the law is wrong but there's no controlling legal authority in this country for striking down laws which obviously conflict with the supreme law of the land, so you're screwed?
Actually, I think you've got it sorta right. There's a popular feeling among some - the "Tenthers" for example - that Congress may only do what the Constitution says it may do. I think it's more useful to think of it in terms of the Congress being able to do whatever it likes - after all, the Congress IS us - except that which the Constitution and our various Supreme Courts say they may NOT do.
 

MaryAnne

Governor
Is this what the left considers reasoned discourse on the Constitution?

If any side demonstrates profound ignorance of constitutional principles it is the left.

The tenets of conferred powers and retained rights is completely lost on them . . .
Stick around this board and you will find levity thrown in to make a good,old fashioned point! Andy always brought Barney around,and Barney would think he won.

Off topic,but that is exactly what Newt Gingrich said about Clinton." He would leave Clinton's office thinking he had won,then realize he had not!"
 
Top