Con Law Question for Libs

[dblack]

Congress is tasked to do what needs to be done

The voters will decide if they are doing it correctly

You go rw - who needs a constitutionally limited government?

 

[dblack]

Congress is tasked to do what needs to be done

The voters will decide if they are doing it correctly

This is why America has so many problems.

Why would that cause problems?

You have issues with helping Americans?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

[rightwinger]

It may mean that to those that do not understand grammer.

Are you saying we have a different interpretation?

Who should decide who is right?

I don't think anyone is disputing that the courts should decide. However, the judges should have an excellent command of the English language and be able to use a dictionary.

OK....they already do

Thousands of judges have made decisions on Constitutionality. Those decisions become part of our legal framework

 

[rightwinger]

Congress is tasked to do what needs to be done

The voters will decide if they are doing it correctly

You go rw - who needs a constitutionally limited government?

That is why we have a judicial branch. The Constitution is great isn't it?

 

[BobPlumb]

Nonsense.

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the courts in accordance with the original intent of the Framers.

The Constitution is neither 'living' nor 'static'; rather, it enshrines the principles of freedom guaranteed to all Americans:

You say nonsense, then support exactly what I said.
Who decides the case law? The courts. The meaning of the constitution often mutates as the courts develop case law.

Again, nonsense.

Read and comprehend Justice Kennedy's explanation of the nature of the Constitution from Lawrence, that the principles it enshrines are immutable, where the people use those unchanging principles to safeguard their civil liberties.

And what happens whe people's interpretation of the principles (the constitution) changes over generations? Do you really beleive that those in power today are interpreting the constutition the same as our founders with the exceptions of the obvious ammendments to the constitution?

 

[dblack]

Congress is tasked to do what needs to be done

The voters will decide if they are doing it correctly

You go rw - who needs a constitutionally limited government?

That is why we have a judicial branch. The Constitution is great isn't it?

Listen, I realize you just come here to needle conservatives, but do you really not get the idea of Constitutional limits on government? Do you really want a government limited only the will of the majority? Don't you realize how dangerous that is?

 

[rightwinger]

You go rw - who needs a constitutionally limited government?

That is why we have a judicial branch. The Constitution is great isn't it?

Listen, I realize you just come here to needle conservatives, but do you really not get the idea of Constitutional limits on government? Do you really want a government limited only the will of the majority? Don't you realize how dangerous that is?

Congress does what needs to be done. They pass laws. You don't like it? Vote them out of office or challenge them in court

Our Constitution is great isn't it?

 

[konradv]

Honestly, is there ANYTHING that Congress might consider a "good idea" that Congress would be prevented from doing by the Constitution?

In other words, does the Constitution place any constraints at all on Congress?

If so, how are those constraints defined? Be specific.

I would like a general answer, but for example, Would Congress be permitted by the Constitution to implement "single payer," mandatory, universal health insurance? Why or why not?

Honestly.

From reading the post so far, it seems that the answer from the liberals to your question is no there are no limits. The Supreme Court has final say on such matters, but as long as enough liberals make up the Supreme Court at the time, the "living document" can mutate to mean anything they want it to mean to promote the general welfare of the country.

From reading conservative posts so far it would seem that all Constitutional issues are obvious, another notion that's false on the face of it. If that were the case, why have a SC at all? It just seems to a ploy to try and get there way all the time. Sorry, but that definitely isn't what the Constitution's all about. The Constitution is very short and purposely vague in order that it can grow with the country. If there's any "original intent" at all, that's it.

 

[dblack]

That is why we have a judicial branch. The Constitution is great isn't it?

Listen, I realize you just come here to needle conservatives, but do you really not get the idea of Constitutional limits on government? Do you really want a government limited only the will of the majority? Don't you realize how dangerous that is?

Congress does what needs to be done. They pass laws. You don't like it? Vote them out of office or challenge them in court

Our Constitution is great isn't it?

Alright. Just go with the jackass schtick then.

 

[rightwinger]

Listen, I realize you just come here to needle conservatives, but do you really not get the idea of Constitutional limits on government? Do you really want a government limited only the will of the majority? Don't you realize how dangerous that is?

Congress does what needs to be done. They pass laws. You don't like it? Vote them out of office or challenge them in court

Our Constitution is great isn't it?

Alright. Just go with the jackass schtick then.

What is jackass about our Constitutional form of government?

 

[dblack]

Honestly, is there ANYTHING that Congress might consider a "good idea" that Congress would be prevented from doing by the Constitution?

In other words, does the Constitution place any constraints at all on Congress?

If so, how are those constraints defined? Be specific.

I would like a general answer, but for example, Would Congress be permitted by the Constitution to implement "single payer," mandatory, universal health insurance? Why or why not?

Honestly.

From reading the post so far, it seems that the answer from the liberals to your question is no there are no limits. The Supreme Court has final say on such matters, but as long as enough liberals make up the Supreme Court at the time, the "living document" can mutate to mean anything they want it to mean to promote the general welfare of the country.

From reading conservative posts so far it would seem that all Constitutional issues are obvious, another notion that's false on the face of it. If that were the case, why have a SC at all? It just seems to a ploy to try and get there way all the time. Sorry, but that definitely isn't what the Constitution's all about. The Constitution is very short and purposely vague in order that it can grow with the country. If there's any "original intent" at all, that's it.

All they're looking for is some common ground. If you were on the court, how would you interpret Constitutional limits? But it's frustrating because liberals treat it like it's a trick question, and routinely dance around it instead of answering. Sure, it's not entirely clear what those limits should be - and yes, that's a matter of interpretation, particularly the Supreme Court's interpretation. How do liberals think the Court should interpret the Constitutions power to limit government? Do you really embrace unlimited majority rule? Are the token protections of the Bill of Rights all you'd enforce? Can government do literally anything the majority doesn't reject by, eventually, voting them out of office? Would you be ok with a full-on police state if the majority was thirsty for fascism?

 

[BobPlumb]

Honestly, is there ANYTHING that Congress might consider a "good idea" that Congress would be prevented from doing by the Constitution?

In other words, does the Constitution place any constraints at all on Congress?

If so, how are those constraints defined? Be specific.

I would like a general answer, but for example, Would Congress be permitted by the Constitution to implement "single payer," mandatory, universal health insurance? Why or why not?

Honestly.

From reading the post so far, it seems that the answer from the liberals to your question is no there are no limits. The Supreme Court has final say on such matters, but as long as enough liberals make up the Supreme Court at the time, the "living document" can mutate to mean anything they want it to mean to promote the general welfare of the country.

From reading conservative posts so far it would seem that all Constitutional issues are obvious, another notion that's false on the face of it. If that were the case, why have a SC at all? It just seems to a ploy to try and get there way all the time. Sorry, but that definitely isn't what the Constitution's all about. The Constitution is very short and purposely vague in order that it can grow with the country. If there's any "original intent" at all, that's it.

There is a process for amending the constitution. That is how it should grow with the country.

I beleive that many constitutional issues are more obvious than many people care to admit. However, people (judges) often find in the constitution what they want to see. To get back to the OP, the constitution was originally written to limit government. Do you beleive that our current government is anywhere near the limits originally set by the constitution? If not, has the constitution been properly amended to allow this expansion of government?

Or has the constitution simply been interpreted and then reinterpreted in case law?

 

[rightwinger]

From reading the post so far, it seems that the answer from the liberals to your question is no there are no limits. The Supreme Court has final say on such matters, but as long as enough liberals make up the Supreme Court at the time, the "living document" can mutate to mean anything they want it to mean to promote the general welfare of the country.

From reading conservative posts so far it would seem that all Constitutional issues are obvious, another notion that's false on the face of it. If that were the case, why have a SC at all? It just seems to a ploy to try and get there way all the time. Sorry, but that definitely isn't what the Constitution's all about. The Constitution is very short and purposely vague in order that it can grow with the country. If there's any "original intent" at all, that's it.

There is a process for amending the constitution. That is how it should grow with the country.

I beleive that many constitutional issues are more obvious than many people care to admit. However, people (judges) often find in the constitution what they want to see. To get back to the OP, the constitution was originally written to limit government. Do you beleive that our current government is anywhere near the limits originally set by the constitution? If not, has the constitution been properly amended to allow this expansion of government?

Or has the constitution simply been interpreted and then reinterpreted in case law?

The Constitution was written to provide a framework for our Government. The Bill of Rights was written to limit Government

Our courts have spent the last 200 years definining those rights

 

[Metzor]

From reading conservative posts so far it would seem that all Constitutional issues are obvious, another notion that's false on the face of it. If that were the case, why have a SC at all? It just seems to a ploy to try and get there way all the time. Sorry, but that definitely isn't what the Constitution's all about. The Constitution is very short and purposely vague in order that it can grow with the country. If there's any "original intent" at all, that's it.

It's purposely vague to people who want to abuse it. The constitution is designed to create a government of the people, for the people, and by the people of the United States of America. The people didn't put it in place so that congress or the courts could create their own powers. The people wanted government to have limits. The powers of congress are clearly limited, well defined and in fact enumerated. In order to form a more perfect union, the people wanted a system of justice established, domestic tranquility insured, the common defense provided for, the general welfare of the union promoted, and the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity secured.

Understanding the scope of the document is crucial to understanding it's intent.

 

[Agit8r]

I would like a general answer, but for example, Would Congress be permitted by the Constitution to implement "single payer," mandatory, universal health insurance? Why or why not?

Honestly.

So long as the legislation does not violate any of the various prohibitions in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the text, then yes it would.

Source: 200+ years of precedence.

 

[rightwinger]

It is a simple process

Congress does whatever the hell they feel like

If the President doesn't like it, he vetos the legislation
If the people don't like it, they vote them out of office
If a state feels they have overstepped their Constitutional authority, they take them to court
If a person feels Congress has violated his rights, he can take them to court

This system has worked for over 225 years

 

[Peach]

Honestly, is there ANYTHING that Congress might consider a "good idea" that Congress would be prevented from doing by the Constitution?

In other words, does the Constitution place any constraints at all on Congress?

If so, how are those constraints defined? Be specific.

I would like a general answer, but for example, Would Congress be permitted by the Constitution to implement "single payer," mandatory, universal health insurance? Why or why not?

Honestly.

Congress may enact, the Judiciary, and the voters have final say; single payer, mandatory, "universal" insurance can only be enforced by a limited monetary penalty. Congresss may not enact state laws, that remains the province of the states. Nor may Congress override a Judicial decision, except by Constitutional amendment, or within the four corners of the decision.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Conservative understanding of our Constitution is almost childlike

Their inability to understand nuance and the role of the courts in interpreting the document reveal how limited their understanding is

True that.

Libs have to explain the first five words of the First Amendment so often, I finally put that instruction in my signature.

They still don't understand what those five words really mean.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It is a simple process

Congress does whatever the hell they feel like

If the President doesn't like it, he vetos the legislation
If the people don't like it, they vote them out of office
If a state feels they have overstepped their Constitutional authority, they take them to court
If a person feels Congress has violated his rights, he can take them to court

This system has worked for over 225 years

The Republicans still don't understand that though.

If they did, they would not hold all their phony votes to repeal ObamaCare, sue Obama, impeach Obama ...

 

[dblack]

It is a simple process

Congress does whatever the hell they feel like

If the President doesn't like it, he vetos the legislation
If the people don't like it, they vote them out of office
If a state feels they have overstepped their Constitutional authority, they take them to court
If a person feels Congress has violated his rights, he can take them to court

This system has worked for over 225 years

You're missing the point. And quite purposefully, I'm convinced.

We all know how the system works. We're asking, what would it take for you to agree that the federal government had overstepped it's Constitutional authority? And so far, all we get are vague allusions to what's left of the Bill of Rights.

Let's consider a concrete scenario. Say we get another serious terrorist attack. Voters freak out and elect another neo-con hawk who starts rounding up Muslims, and anyone with a suspicious olive complexion, and hauling them off to detainment camps. Desperate times call for desperate measures, so we reinstitute the draft. A federal law is passed requiring all children to attend 'loyal patriot' training to weed out any 'anti-social personality disorders' before they get out of hand. To support the war on terrorism, all citizens are required to work 20 hours a week at Homeland Security monitoring stations. ...

I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea. The question is - do you see any Constitutional grounds for the Court to put a halt to such such insanity? Or would it be your position that, as long as the majority supports it, let it ride?