Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Abortion is covered no where in the Constitution. Nor is the right of privacy. Judges make these up. They find penumbras. They imagine.
...Abandoning originalism means abandoning the rationale which Marbury v. Madison uses to justify judicial review. Without originalism there can be no constitutionally limited government, and no judicial review.
a textbook case of having just enough knowledge to be dangerous.
The inventors of Strict Construction (Jefferson and Madison) were bitch-slapped by Marshall in Marbury, and as in the later decision of Roe v Wade, his originalism extended to the English Common Law and it's context:
"I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the Courts of common law. And herein I shall for the present only remark that all possible injuries whatsoever that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice, for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress."
-- John Marshall; quoting Blackstone in decision of Marbury v. Madison
The Myth of Strict Construction - Broowaha
Such is the obfuscation of those who are ignorant of the fact that the amendment process is the ONLY method for legally altering the Constitution.
Oh, I could have sworn that Obama's healthcare mandate was upheld by the Supreme Court.
It was... As a Tax.
So what are 'we' complaining about, constitutionally?
The author of this thread once complained that Obamacare invaded our rights to privacy, and then turned around the other day and decided there is no constitutional right of privacy.
You seem to be very ignorant of our history
That happens when you cut and paste.
And here is the post of one who'd like to be relevant....but has no understanding of the amendment process and why it is avoided by progressives.
It was... As a Tax.
So what are 'we' complaining about, constitutionally?
The author of this thread once complained that Obamacare invaded our rights to privacy, and then turned around the other day and decided there is no constitutional right of privacy.
Because for the first time in American history it made inaction a taxable event. Tell me, how do you place limits on that concept? It also allowed for a direct tax which is not allowed in the Constitution. It does not fall under the execption of the 17 Amendment because income is not a trigger for the tax, it is simply a multiplier for the tax. Any third grade debater could tear Roberts a new one on that decision, you might want to read it, it's a great exercise in circular logic.
Abortion is covered no where in the Constitution. Nor is the right of privacy. Judges make these up. They find penumbras. They imagine.
...Abandoning originalism means abandoning the rationale which Marbury v. Madison uses to justify judicial review. Without originalism there can be no constitutionally limited government, and no judicial review.
a textbook case of having just enough knowledge to be dangerous.
The inventors of Strict Construction (Jefferson and Madison) were bitch-slapped by Marshall in Marbury, and as in the later decision of Roe v Wade, his originalism extended to the English Common Law and it's context:
"I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the Courts of common law. And herein I shall for the present only remark that all possible injuries whatsoever that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice, for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress."
-- John Marshall; quoting Blackstone in decision of Marbury v. Madison
The Myth of Strict Construction - Broowaha
Such is the obfuscation of those who are ignorant of the fact that the amendment process is the ONLY method for legally altering the Constitution.
It was... As a Tax.
Social Security is funded by a tax. Why all the nonsense about it being unconstitutional?
Such is the obfuscation of those who are willfully blind as to the fact that the amendment process is the ONLY method for legally altering the Constitution.
So what are 'we' complaining about, constitutionally?
The author of this thread once complained that Obamacare invaded our rights to privacy, and then turned around the other day and decided there is no constitutional right of privacy.
Because for the first time in American history it made inaction a taxable event. Tell me, how do you place limits on that concept? It also allowed for a direct tax which is not allowed in the Constitution. It does not fall under the execption of the 17 Amendment because income is not a trigger for the tax, it is simply a multiplier for the tax. Any third grade debater could tear Roberts a new one on that decision, you might want to read it, it's a great exercise in circular logic.
Not having children is an inaction, and a taxable event. Not having a mortgage with deductible interest is an inaction and a taxable event.
Classic Liberalism is a term made up by Conservatives. It's a little like Compassionate Conservative without the hilarity.
a textbook case of having just enough knowledge to be dangerous.
The inventors of Strict Construction (Jefferson and Madison) were bitch-slapped by Marshall in Marbury, and as in the later decision of Roe v Wade, his originalism extended to the English Common Law and it's context:
The Myth of Strict Construction - Broowaha
Such is the obfuscation of those who are ignorant of the fact that the amendment process is the ONLY method for legally altering the Constitution.
Nothing here about "legally altering the constitution." it is about understanding the constitution in context. Since you are obviously EXTREMELY confused about this, I suggest you re-read above ^ or better yet; educate yourself about the history of constitutional law much more extensively before regurgitating the diatribes of the other ignorant people that make up the right-wing media
Such is the obfuscation of those who are ignorant of the fact that the amendment process is the ONLY method for legally altering the Constitution.
Nothing here about "legally altering the constitution." it is about understanding the constitution in context. Since you are obviously EXTREMELY confused about this, I suggest you re-read above ^ or better yet; educate yourself about the history of constitutional law much more extensively before regurgitating the diatribes of the other ignorant people that make up the right-wing media
Correct.
Interpreting the Constitution is not altering it; indeed, it was the intent and expectation of the Framers that the Constitution and its case law be subject to judicial review and interpretation, as has always been the case in the context of Anglo-American jurisprudence.
That one disagrees with how the courts interpret the Constitution and its case law does not give him license to ignore or violate that case law.
Griswold/Roe/Casey, for example, is wise and consistent case law in the context of the Framers intent, where the courts defer to individual liberty by placing limits on government authority.
Because for the first time in American history it made inaction a taxable event. Tell me, how do you place limits on that concept? It also allowed for a direct tax which is not allowed in the Constitution. It does not fall under the execption of the 17 Amendment because income is not a trigger for the tax, it is simply a multiplier for the tax. Any third grade debater could tear Roberts a new one on that decision, you might want to read it, it's a great exercise in circular logic.
Not having children is an inaction, and a taxable event. Not having a mortgage with deductible interest is an inaction and a taxable event.
Wrong, having children or a mortgage qualifies you for a deduction of taxable income to reduce tax liability, the liability already exist by virtue of having the income. Care to try again?
Not having children is an inaction, and a taxable event. Not having a mortgage with deductible interest is an inaction and a taxable event.
Wrong, having children or a mortgage qualifies you for a deduction of taxable income to reduce tax liability, the liability already exist by virtue of having the income. Care to try again?
Remind me what we're arguing about. The mandate was found constitutional.
All we're really hearing here are conservative minority views about the Constitution that were minority, dissenting views of the Court over the years.
In other words, those views were given due process, and lost.
1. According to you....does a court have the right to change the Constitution?
Essentially, that is the crux.
2. For Progressives/Liberals/Democrats....the answer is 'of course! It's all about social justice."
3.For classical liberals/conservatives, the answer is a resounding "No! The amendment process is the only method for changing the Constitution. It's all about the law!"
4. For the former folks, I recommend Dr. Thomas Sowell's book Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One.
It challenges individuals to analyze not only their short term (Stage One) impact but to also think ahead to their long term (Stage Two, Three, etc) impact.
5. Progressives do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.
a. What better example, and proof, than the mortgage meltdown.
FDR instituted Fannie and Freddie......neither authorized in the Constitution, and the result is the financial crisis....
....as Sowell says: "... much later when the long term consequences appear."
6. Had FDR been brave enough to demand an amendment...there would have been great debate and discussion....and it would have failed.
QED...no mortgage meltdown.
I dare you to answer the above.
Overturning Roe v Wade would change the Constitution since under the Constitution as it now exists,
abortion in some cases is a Constitutional Right.
Now does the Court have the right to overturn Roe, and thus change the Constitution?
Oh, I could have sworn that Obama's healthcare mandate was upheld by the Supreme Court.
It was... As a Tax.
Social Security is funded by a tax. Why all the nonsense about it being unconstitutional?
Social Security is funded by a tax. Why all the nonsense about it being unconstitutional?
Such is the obfuscation of those who are willfully blind as to the fact that the amendment process is the ONLY method for legally altering the Constitution.
Social Security withstood a constitutional challenge.
Nothing here about "legally altering the constitution." it is about understanding the constitution in context. Since you are obviously EXTREMELY confused about this, I suggest you re-read above ^ or better yet; educate yourself about the history of constitutional law much more extensively before regurgitating the diatribes of the other ignorant people that make up the right-wing media
Correct.
Interpreting the Constitution is not altering it; indeed, it was the intent and expectation of the Framers that the Constitution and its case law be subject to judicial review and interpretation, as has always been the case in the context of Anglo-American jurisprudence.
That one disagrees with how the courts interpret the Constitution and its case law does not give him license to ignore or violate that case law.
Griswold/Roe/Casey, for example, is wise and consistent case law in the context of the Framers intent, where the courts defer to individual liberty by placing limits on government authority.
So when a court "interprets" the Constitution in a manner just the opposite of the authors stated intent, that's just okey dokey. Got it.
Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
Now I am laughing at you...
What did FDR do to get that ruling?
Such is the obfuscation of those who are willfully blind as to the fact that the amendment process is the ONLY method for legally altering the Constitution.
Social Security withstood a constitutional challenge.
Now I am laughing at you...
What did FDR do to get that ruling?
Social Security withstood a constitutional challenge.
Not what you think he did.
Wrong, having children or a mortgage qualifies you for a deduction of taxable income to reduce tax liability, the liability already exist by virtue of having the income. Care to try again?
Remind me what we're arguing about. The mandate was found constitutional.
I think with a proper argument that could be reversed, unless you think the court never makes mistakes. Every precedent Roberts cites in the decision requires action to trigger a tax or government action, this is the first time inaction can be used to justify a tax. By his reasoning the government could mandate you buy a new car every year to support the auto industry and failure to do so could be a trigger for a tax, how can you limit such reasoning?
One of his precedents was the government having the ability to fine farmers who grew too much wheat, because the government wanted to support wheat prices. If you use Roberts reasoning they could have just taxed people it they failed to purchase enough wheat or wheat products and accomplished the same thing. Is that a road you really want to travel.
