# When is a liberal interpretation of the Constitution UnAmerican?



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 9, 2016)

when that reading expands liberal govt despite the Constitution having the opposite purpose-right?.


----------



## Divine Wind (Dec 9, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> when that reading expands liberal govt despite the Constitution having the opposite purpose-right?.


That would be one.  Another is when they seek to restrict the rights of honest, law-abiding citizens.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 9, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > when that reading expands liberal govt despite the Constitution having the opposite purpose-right?.
> ...


what would be best example of that?


----------



## Divine Wind (Dec 9, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Seeking to require all honest citizens register and maintain a government record of gun ownership is one example.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 9, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> when that reading expands liberal govt despite the Constitution having the opposite purpose-right?.


It is the job description of the SCOTUS justices to interpret the Constitution.

There are 2 kinds of SCOTUS justices -- strict constructionists vs activist.

Activist justices read things into the Constitution that were not there.

Strict constructionist justices apply the literal English language of the Constitution in light of the judicial precedent under English Common Law.

Swing voters are a combo of both.

Kennedy and Roberts are swing voters.

Thomas and Alito are strict constructionists.

Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan are activists.

Trump will be nominating 1 new justice soon, and possibly another in the next 4 years too.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 10, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> It is the job description of the SCOTUS justices to interpret the Constitution.
> .


I don't think so. It is their job to read it and apply it.


----------



## TipOfTheIceberg (Dec 24, 2016)

corporations are people!  Some much for the wisdom of a RWnut court.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 24, 2016)

Conservatives do this all the time...The constitution isn't constructed to be rigged outside of the no, no's in the amendments. We're one of the few nations on earth that has judicial review to prevent this and to allow it to move with the time. Conservatives would make this nation one of the least democratic nations on earth if they got their way. The voters couldn't vote for anything at the federal level.

What is funny is abortion, national gun laws and other shit conservatives wish for wouldn't be constitutional either.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 24, 2016)

I think our system is too restrictive as is and believe a UK or Canadian Westminster muilti-party system is superior. People should be able to vote for the policies that they think is best for the time.

Staying in the 18th century is dumb.


----------



## Anathema (Dec 24, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> what would be best example of that?



Thousands of gun laws.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 24, 2016)

I think the reality that conservatives don't understand judicial review, case law and *Supremacy Clause and Commence clause. *Not understanding the reality that our federal government has this kind of power and living in confederation times before the current constitution is anti-American.


----------



## TipOfTheIceberg (Dec 25, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > when that reading expands liberal govt despite the Constitution having the opposite purpose-right?.
> ...



"law abiding citizens".  I get sick of hearing that.  Some of the worst serial killers in history were law abiding citizens.  If yu love guns does that automaticly make a person a law abiding citizen?


----------



## Divine Wind (Dec 25, 2016)

TipOfTheIceberg said:


> "law abiding citizens".  I get sick of hearing that.  Some of the worst serial killers in history were law abiding citizens.  If yu love guns does that automaticly make a person a law abiding citizen?


Sick of hearing about law-abiding citizens?  The tip of the iceberg are those who hate everyone who is different than themselves and who seek to convict someone of a crime before any crime has been committed.  If you have a solution to serial killers, gang-bangers and domestic abuse, please post it.  If you solution is to impose a mandatory gun-ban under a police state, be honest enough to admit it.


----------



## Divine Wind (Dec 25, 2016)

Matthew said:


> *Conservatives do this all the time.*..The constitution isn't constructed to be rigged outside of the no, no's in the amendments. We're one of the few nations on earth that has judicial review to prevent this and to allow it to move with the time. Conservatives would make this nation one of the least democratic nations on earth if they got their way. The voters couldn't vote for anything at the federal level.
> 
> What is funny is abortion, national gun laws and other shit conservatives wish for wouldn't be constitutional either.





Matthew said:


> I think the reality that *conservatives don't understand judicial review, case law and Supremacy Clause and Commence clause. *Not understanding the reality that our federal government has this kind of power and living in confederation times before the current constitution is anti-American.


Nice examples of stereotyping and bigotry.  You do the same with gender and race or just differing political points of view?


----------



## Divine Wind (Dec 25, 2016)

TipOfTheIceberg said:


> corporations are people!  Some much for the wisdom of a RWnut court.


Congress can fix that.  Why didn't they? 

Hillary raised a lot more money than Trump from corporations and the 1%ers.  Did you vote for her?


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Dec 25, 2016)

TipOfTheIceberg said:


> corporations are people!  Some much for the wisdom of a RWnut court.



The USSC declared corporations artificial people so they can be regulated, taxes and sued. You dimwit


----------



## TipOfTheIceberg (Dec 25, 2016)

Cellblock2429 said:


> TipOfTheIceberg said:
> 
> 
> > corporations are people!  Some much for the wisdom of a RWnut court.
> ...



Give me an example or link.  It was done so they could make unlimited political donations and usurp the power of the common man. 
now just calm down and eat your pudding you mean spirited wanker.


----------



## Divine Wind (Dec 25, 2016)

TipOfTheIceberg said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> > TipOfTheIceberg said:
> ...


The Citizens United ruling was a watershed moment for political campaigns.  Still, SCOTUS rules on the law, it's up to Congress to make Constitutional laws.   

The ‘Citizens United’ decision and why it matters
_The Citizens United ruling, released in January 2010, tossed out the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. It gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or defeat of individual candidates.

In a nutshell, the high court’s 5-4 decision said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.

The decision did not affect contributions. It is still illegal for companies and labor unions to give money directly to candidates for federal office. The court said that because these funds were not being spent in coordination with a campaign, they “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

So if the decision was about spending, why has so much been written about contributions? Like seven and eight-figure donations from people like casino magnate and billionaire Sheldon Adelson who, with his family, has given about $40 million to so-called “super PACs,” formed in the wake of the decision?

For that, we need to look at another court case — SpeechNow.org v. FEC. The lower-court case used the Citizens United case as precedent when it said that limits on contributions to groups that make independent expenditures are unconstitutional.

And that’s what led to the creation of the super PACs, which act as shadow political parties. They accept unlimited donations from billionaires, corporations and unions and use it to buy advertising, most of it negative.

The Supreme Court kept limits on disclosure in place, and super PACs are required to report regularly on who their donors are. The same can’t be said for “social welfare” groups and some other nonprofits, like business leagues.

These groups can function the same way as super PACs, so long as election activity is not their primary activity. But unlike the super PACs, nonprofits do not report who funds them. That’s disturbing to those who favor transparency in elections. An attempt by Congress to pass a law requiring disclosure was blocked by Republican lawmakers.

The Citizens United decision was surprising given the sensitivity regarding corporate and union money being used to influence a federal election. Congress first banned corporations from funding federal campaigns in 1907 with the Tillman Act. In 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act extended the ban to labor unions. But the laws were weak and tough to enforce._


----------



## TipOfTheIceberg (Dec 25, 2016)

thank you. ^


----------



## gipper (Dec 26, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Conservatives do this all the time...The constitution isn't constructed to be rigged outside of the no, no's in the amendments. We're one of the few nations on earth that has judicial review to prevent this and to allow it to move with the time. Conservatives would make this nation one of the least democratic nations on earth if they got their way. The voters couldn't vote for anything at the federal level.
> 
> What is funny is abortion, national gun laws and other shit conservatives wish for wouldn't be constitutional either.


If only the Constitution was actually adhered to by the central government.  If it were, government would be limited to doing only what the Constitution allows...this is what limited government means.  Please take note.

Nearly everything the central government is currently doing is unconstitutional.  Sadly too many dummies like you don't know this clear and evident fact.

That is the problem with some lefties. You are generally uninformed so facts surprise you.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 26, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > It is the job description of the SCOTUS justices to interpret the Constitution.
> ...


no the SCOTUS only reviews new laws and legislation to see it it is acceptable under the restrictions on government set forth in the Constitution.  That's why the individual interpretation of the Constitution of each justice matters


----------



## gipper (Dec 26, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


There is no such thing as 'individual interpretation' of the Constitution...well of course there is today, but only because it has been bastardized. 

The SC justice is suppose to apply the interpretation of the Constitution, as it was understood by the Founding Fathers and the states who ratified it.

No justice gets to apply his or her own interpretation.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 26, 2016)

gipper said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



The fact is that there are different interpretations of the Constitution you have to accept that to be effective in protecting it


----------



## gipper (Dec 26, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


No.

If you allow all justices their own interpretation, you are allowing for unlimited government.  Which is exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent.  We have unlimited government today thanks to a SC that fails to force government to adhere to the Constitution.  

Allowing different interpretations leads to subversion of the Constitution...again, what we have today.


----------



## TipOfTheIceberg (Dec 26, 2016)

gipper said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Conservatives do this all the time...The constitution isn't constructed to be rigged outside of the no, no's in the amendments. We're one of the few nations on earth that has judicial review to prevent this and to allow it to move with the time. Conservatives would make this nation one of the least democratic nations on earth if they got their way. The voters couldn't vote for anything at the federal level.
> ...


Youneed an enema cause you are so full of shit, gipper.  I know were yu were banned, lol.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 26, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> when that reading expands liberal govt despite the Constitution having the opposite purpose-right?.


when it gives in to right wing, Orwellian fantasy.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 26, 2016)

gipper said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



None of that negates the fact that there are people who interpret the constitution differently
Denying that fact makes you naive


----------



## gipper (Dec 26, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


I do not deny it and clearly my prior posts indicate I know it occurs.  Why the strawman?

The problem you have is the Founders nor the States never intended for individual interpretations of the Constitution.  If you do not agree with that statement, you are not informed.  To think the Founders wrote, implemented, and interpreted it so that later generations of jurists and politicians could interpret it differently,* is naive and well stupid.*


----------



## gipper (Dec 26, 2016)

TipOfTheIceberg said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


What?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 26, 2016)

gipper said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Whether they intended it or not is moot. The moment they empowered the Supreme Court they enabled 9 people to interpret the constitution so I;m sure they were aware of it.


----------



## gipper (Dec 26, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Again, the nine justices are not suppose to interpret the Constitution as they see fit.  They are to apply its meaning as the Founder's intended it, to cases they hear.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 26, 2016)

What is so fucking wonderful about living in a nation where the rich can fuck over and do what ever they fucking want??? While everyone else gets next to no say.

I'd rather live in a society that allows people to vote for the government that works for them.


I couldn't imagine a less free reality then the one you liberterians promote.


----------



## gipper (Dec 26, 2016)

Matthew said:


> What is so fucking wonderful about living in a nation where the rich can fuck over and do what ever they fucking want??? While everyone else gets next to no say.
> 
> I'd rather live in a society that allows people to vote for the government that works for them.
> 
> ...


You don't know that your government is responsible and is the one fucking you over.


----------



## regent (Dec 26, 2016)

gipper said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


So the justices use their opinion as to what the Framers intended.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 26, 2016)

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



The guy wants us to go back to the confederation and more or less turn our federal government into a defense pact. 

No democracy for the people
Government doesn't do shit
The rich and corporations own society without government to stop them.
The poor as in the lower 90% is fucked.


----------



## gipper (Dec 27, 2016)

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


No.

The Framers made their interpretation of the Constitution very well known.  Of course, you need to read history to know this.  Start with the Federalist Papers.


----------



## gipper (Dec 27, 2016)

Matthew said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


You are so ignorant that you don't realize all those things you list, are exactly what we have today.


----------



## gipper (Dec 27, 2016)

Matthew said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Even the great John Lennon knows you are wrong....


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 27, 2016)

Matthew said:


> The guy wants us to go back to the confederation and more or less turn our federal government into a defense pact.
> 
> No democracy for the people
> .


 states would have democracies??????????????  and if you didn't like your state's democracy you could move to a state you did like.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 27, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Government doesn't do shit



state govt can do as much as it wants. Do you understand anything at all?
*

67)James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."*


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 27, 2016)

Matthew said:


> The rich and corporations own society without government to stop them.
> .



dear, if you have capitalism the rich and corporations survive only by offering the common  man the best jobs and products possible. Now do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 27, 2016)

Matthew said:


> The poor as in the lower 90% is fucked.


not if you have Republican capitalism. then  the lower 90% must be offered the best products and wages in the world. When govt intervenes as Stalin Mao and Castro did 100 million starved to death thanks to their interference.

Govt is the enemy not the protector of capitalism . How did you get it backwards?


----------



## gipper (Dec 27, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Government doesn't do shit
> ...


If only the Constitution were used as James Madison intended.  It is really a dead letter.  Thanks to assholes who think the Constitution can be interpreted as they see fit, we now live under rule by elite rather than by law.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 27, 2016)

gipper said:


> Thanks to assholes who think the Constitution can be interpreted as they see fit,


 
yep, govt caused all the evil in human history and yet liberals love govt. It's so stupid it should be illegal.


----------



## regent (Dec 27, 2016)

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


The Federalist Papers are letters to the editor and have no power, just as a poster's opinion on these message boards.


----------



## gipper (Dec 28, 2016)

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


Why the strawman post?  Oh...its YOU...the strawman king.

The Federalist Papers were written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay.  They were written to explain the Constitution and promote it's ratification.

If you continue to respond to my well informed posts with ignorant ones, you leave me no choice but to ban you.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 28, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > The poor as in the lower 90% is fucked.
> ...


Only the right wing, is that fantastical. The Socialism of Government provides stable markets for Capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 28, 2016)

gipper said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


that only happens with politics.  y'all elected a one percenter.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 28, 2016)

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


The Federalist Papers provide the rationale for the federal doctrine and our Republican form of Government. Only the fantastical, right wing, never gets it.


----------



## regent (Dec 28, 2016)

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Well it's one way to stifle a different view. but understandable.


----------



## gipper (Dec 28, 2016)

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


There is no different view.  There is right and wrong. You are wrong.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 28, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


*Elitist Star Chamber*

SCROTUS empowered itself.  It interpreted the Constitution as giving it the right to interpret the Constitution.  That was not only a logical fallacy, but it was obviously untrue or they would have been judging and rejecting Acts of Congress since 1789.  Second, judicial review had nothing to do with deciding Marbury's case against Madison.  So it was_ obiter dictum_ and therefore non-binding.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 28, 2016)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



I agree, one justice said," give me 5 votes and I can do anything I want." In short, they now have the power to control all of govt. This was clearly not what our Founders wanted for any branch of govt and certainly not the tiny unelected SCOTUS..


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 29, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


*Judicial Review Must Be Nullified*

It constitutes (pun intended) an extra layer of Establishment tyranny.  If Congress is limited by the voters' wrath from imposing an undesirable law on the nation, SCROTUS can step in and step on the people's will.


----------



## Lastamender (Dec 29, 2016)

WATCH - The Lawfare Project


----------



## regent (Dec 29, 2016)

So where in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power of judicial review? Most books on the law and Constitution cannot seem to find the clause.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 30, 2016)

regent said:


> So where in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power of judicial review? Most books on the law and Constitution cannot seem to find the clause.


we don't have a drug war clause, either; coincidence or conspiracy?


----------



## regent (Dec 30, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > So where in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power of judicial review? Most books on the law and Constitution cannot seem to find the clause.
> ...


So are you suggesting that Congress can pass any legislation it wants because it passed a drug war clause?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 30, 2016)

regent said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


they already have; what natural rights have they not trampled?


----------

