Choose: Progressives or the Constitution

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Your tax liability already exists until you obtain the insurance.

 

[Agit8r]

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.

examples?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Overturning Roe would not alter the Constitution in any way, just as "finding" that "right" did not alter the Constitution kid.

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?

Why tell me? The poster I responded to thinks the Roe decision invented a right of privacy in the Constitution that doesn't exist.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

examples?

Likely everything that conflicts with rightist dogma.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Apparently not.

By what authority do you presume a given interpretation of the Constitution conflicts with the Framers’ intent?

All perceptions of the Constitution are an interpretation.

The fact is the Framers had no specific intent, their concern and focus was that the principles of the Constitution be preserved and protected:

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

Article 1, Section 8 was authored by Madison, he and Jefferson said the tax and spend power were restricted by the enumerated powers in the remainder of the article. Here's a link to the historical uses and how the courts disregarded Jefferson and Madison in favor of Hamilton who lost the debate during the convention. Check it out, it's not that long.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: Spending Clause

 

[OKTexas]

Overturning Roe would not alter the Constitution in any way, just as "finding" that "right" did not alter the Constitution kid.

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?

Why tell me? The poster I responded to thinks the Roe decision invented a right of privacy in the Constitution that doesn't exist.

I would argue just the opposite, the 4th Amendment established a right to privacy. Allot of good that did.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Jeeze, you sure have some long winded, meandering posts!

1. OJ as a liberal hero? WTF? And I've seen conservatives get all "weepy" about Reagan. Heck, Boner gets weepy about practically anything.

2. Why does the right try to paint the founders as infallible deities then. they always want to go back to the founders' intent, as though they were incapable of mistakes.

3. Strawman argument that liberals "worship" at the alter of the founders whereas the wonderful enlightened conservatives don't.

4. You'd probably go back to slavery if you could.

5. I thought federalism was big government? I suppose this would be one way for the Repugs to take control of the senate through their gerrymandered congressional districts.

6 - 9. OK with me. who cares?

10. Because they are politicians in robes. That's why each side tries to stack the court in their favor.

11. Plenty of right wing activism to be found in the court too.
a. Governance today has little to do with consent. The rules were in place long before you were born. You break the rules, you pay the consequences.

b. Abortion and privacy fall under the 9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Skipped right over 12.

13. What? You think that we have to enumerate all of our rights? I thought the purpose of the constitution was to limit the rights of the Government, not the governed.

14. I agree. If you don't want privacy or abortion rights, then a Constitutional amendment prohibiting them should be made.

" I thought federalism was big government?"

And here is the proof that the uneducated have no basis nor business in this discussion.



" I thought federalism was big government?"

This is why you should have remained in school beyond the fifth grade.

It is National Government plus Regional Government. Sounds pretty big to me. Maybe you should get off your high horse and address the arguments made rather than resort to petty insults.

I'm more than capable of doing both.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

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!"



Pick one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Then you must agree with those who desire to put a so-called life amendment in the Constitution,

to give the unborn rights of personhood that they do not currently have in the Constitution.

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!"


Pick one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

There have been numerous erroneous decisions by Supreme Courts.


For you, Justices are gods.

For me, the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

There have been numerous erroneous decisions by Supreme Courts.


For you, Justices are gods.

For me, the Constitution.

The American people have the final say. The American people have had about 75 years to amend the Constitution to put an end to Social Security. They haven't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

There have been numerous erroneous decisions by Supreme Courts.


For you, Justices are gods.

For me, the Constitution.

So to you the Constitution is a god? Is that possibly in conflict with that other god's admonition about not having any other gods before me,

or aren't you a practitioner of that particular faith?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Overturning Roe would not alter the Constitution in any way, just as "finding" that "right" did not alter the Constitution kid.

Why tell me? The poster I responded to thinks the Roe decision invented a right of privacy in the Constitution that doesn't exist.

I would argue just the opposite, the 4th Amendment established a right to privacy. Allot of good that did.

Well then give me a break and argue with her about it for a while.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

There have been numerous erroneous decisions by Supreme Courts.


For you, Justices are gods.

For me, the Constitution.

But obviously not an infallible "god" or blacks would still be 3/5 of a man and women would still not vote. In fact the number of amendments says your "god" is quite fallible. So who's to say who made more errors, the Constitution or the Extreme Court? Neither one seems all that godly!!!

 

[Spoonman]

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.

There have been numerous erroneous decisions by Supreme Courts.


For you, Justices are gods.

For me, the Constitution.

i agree. there were laws and rights set up to govern this nation. those laws were set up to protect us from the tyranny they fled. as soon as you allow changes to start taking place you open the door for that tyranny to walk back in.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Social Security withstood a constitutional challenge.

There have been numerous erroneous decisions by Supreme Courts.


For you, Justices are gods.

For me, the Constitution.

So to you the Constitution is a god? Is that possibly in conflict with that other god's admonition about not having any other gods before me,

or aren't you a practitioner of that particular faith?

Try to be more astute.

...'god,' lower case is not the same as God.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Social Security withstood a constitutional challenge.

There have been numerous erroneous decisions by Supreme Courts.


For you, Justices are gods.

For me, the Constitution.

But obviously not an infallible "god" or blacks would still be 3/5 of a man and women would still not vote. In fact the number of amendments says your "god" is quite fallible. So who's to say who made more errors, the Constitution or the Extreme Court? Neither one seems all that godly!!!

Why must you insist on proving what a fool you are.....??

Trust me on this: it's evident to all.

The OP is about the amendment process, and announced that the Founders realized the Constitution could have flaws.



Yes...that is in the OP.

 

[regent]

How many of the hundreds, perhaps thousand, of changes and interpretations of the constitution have taken place since it went into effect, and of those hundreds, how many were by amendment? Most changes have been by the Court, others by simple use and tradition, some by law. The California constitution has been amended over 600 times and some corporations love that easy amendment process.
I wonder how many laws that we obey today with little question, would be found unconstitutional by certain courts?

 

[NYcarbineer]

There have been numerous erroneous decisions by Supreme Courts.


For you, Justices are gods.

For me, the Constitution.

So to you the Constitution is a god? Is that possibly in conflict with that other god's admonition about not having any other gods before me,

or aren't you a practitioner of that particular faith?

Try to be more astute.

...'god,' lower case is not the same as God.

Exodus 20:3-17 - Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How many of the hundreds, perhaps thousand, of changes and interpretations of the constitution have taken place since it went into effect, and of those hundreds, how many were by amendment? Most changes have been by the Court, others by simple use and tradition, some by law. The California constitution has been amended over 600 times and some corporations love that easy amendment process.
I wonder how many laws that we obey today with little question, would be found unconstitutional by certain courts?

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!"



Pick one.
_____________