Con Law Question for Libs

[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

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?

OK lets look at your example

Congress does whatever the hell they feel like
Congress passes a law rounding up Muslims and reinstituting the draft

If the President doesn't like it, he vetos the legislation
The President should veto the law, but if he doesn't
If the people don't like it, they vote them out of office
The people are outraged by the law and drive those representatives out of office...if not
If a state feels they have overstepped their Constitutional authority, they take them to court
The state thinks the federal government has overstepped its bounds and blocks implementation...if not
If a person feels Congress has violated his rights, he can take them to court
Individual Muslims and young people think their rights are violated and sue in court

If, after all that, the courts still don't step in....It becomes the law of the land

 

[regent]

As Justice Hughes said: the Constitution is what the Court say it is.

When the interpretation problem came up early in our history some founders believed the President should decide, others the Congress and so on. The Court decided it would be the Court that interprets. The ironic thing is that few could find in the Constitution where that power was given to the Court, but the Court saw the power quite clearly.
Someday perhaps a computer, will be programmed by politicians to do the interpreting.
Some states have put many of their laws into their state Constitutions as amendments with amendments numbering almost 700 as compared to the federal's 27.

 

[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?

OK lets look at your example

Congress does whatever the hell they feel like
Congress passes a law rounding up Muslims and reinstituting the draft

If the President doesn't like it, he vetos the legislation
The President should veto the law, but if he doesn't
If the people don't like it, they vote them out of office
The people are outraged by the law and drive those representatives out of office...if not
If a state feels they have overstepped their Constitutional authority, they take them to court
The state thinks the federal government has overstepped its bounds and blocks implementation...if not
If a person feels Congress has violated his rights, he can take them to court
Individual Muslims and young people think their rights are violated and sue in court

If, after all that, the courts still don't step in....It becomes the law of the land

Still dodging? Again, we know how the system works. Just answer the question: if you were sitting on the Court, how would you see it? Under what circumstances would you agree that the government had overstepped its Constitutional authority?

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

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

yes it has happened many a times

 

[rightwinger]

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?

OK lets look at your example

Congress does whatever the hell they feel like
Congress passes a law rounding up Muslims and reinstituting the draft

If the President doesn't like it, he vetos the legislation
The President should veto the law, but if he doesn't
If the people don't like it, they vote them out of office
The people are outraged by the law and drive those representatives out of office...if not
If a state feels they have overstepped their Constitutional authority, they take them to court
The state thinks the federal government has overstepped its bounds and blocks implementation...if not
If a person feels Congress has violated his rights, he can take them to court
Individual Muslims and young people think their rights are violated and sue in court

If, after all that, the courts still don't step in....It becomes the law of the land

Still dodging? Again, we know how the system works. Just answer the question: if you were sitting on the Court, how would you see it? Under what circumstances would you agree that the government had overstepped its Constitutional authority?

I don't understand your question

Of course Congress passes dumb laws. Of course some laws overstep their bounds. Most do not survive
But some do

If I were sitting on a court, I would have struck down the Patriot Act, demanded immediate trials for Gitmo prisoners, prosecuted Bush officials for torture

But our courts are not always perfect and allow some injustice to stand

 

[dblack]

If I were sitting on a court, I would have struck down the Patriot Act, demanded immediate trials for Gitmo prisoners, prosecuted Bush officials for torture

But our courts are not always perfect and allow some injustice to stand

OK.. .thank you. We're getting closer, but we're not quite there. Why would you have struck down the Patriot Act? Why would you say it represents government overstepping it's Constitutional authority?

 

[Metzor]

It is a simple process

Congress does whatever the hell they feel like

You failed right off the bat. The founders enumerated the powers of congress to keep congress from acting on the foolish whims of the people.

 

[rightwinger]

It is a simple process

Congress does whatever the hell they feel like

You failed right off the bat. The founders enumerated the powers of congress to keep congress from acting on the foolish whims of the people.

Not quite

And we have 225 years of case law that says you are full of shit

 

[rightwinger]

If I were sitting on a court, I would have struck down the Patriot Act, demanded immediate trials for Gitmo prisoners, prosecuted Bush officials for torture

But our courts are not always perfect and allow some injustice to stand

OK.. .thank you. We're getting closer, but we're not quite there. Why would you have struck down the Patriot Act? Why would you say it represents government overstepping it's Constitutional authority?

It is a gross violation of the fourth amendment

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

There are several things they can't do. At least not without amending the Constitution. They can't abridge free speech, establish a state religion, board soldiers in people's houses, etc.

 

[dblack]

If I were sitting on a court, I would have struck down the Patriot Act, demanded immediate trials for Gitmo prisoners, prosecuted Bush officials for torture

But our courts are not always perfect and allow some injustice to stand

OK.. .thank you. We're getting closer, but we're not quite there. Why would you have struck down the Patriot Act? Why would you say it represents government overstepping it's Constitutional authority?

It is a gross violation of the fourth amendment

So, after all your foot shuffling, your answer to the OP is actually "yes".

 

[Metzor]

It is a simple process

Congress does whatever the hell they feel like

You failed right off the bat. The founders enumerated the powers of congress to keep congress from acting on the foolish whims of the people.

Not quite

And we have 225 years of case law that says you are full of shit

Case law doesn't override the supreme law of the land. Why would the founders bother to list the powers of congress, if congress could do whatever the hell they feel like?

 

[rightwinger]

You failed right off the bat. The founders enumerated the powers of congress to keep congress from acting on the foolish whims of the people.

Not quite

And we have 225 years of case law that says you are full of shit

Case law doesn't override the supreme law of the land. Why would the founders bother to list the powers of congress, if congress could do whatever the hell they feel like?

It clarifying them.

 

[Metzor]

They were already perfectly clear.

 

[DGS49]

The USSC has no power to modify the Constitution, or to add new provisions, or to "void" provisions of the Constitution.

When they deign to address a case, their role is to look at the law in question, look at the case in question, and determine whether, in that case, the law has been applied according to the mandates of the Constitution.

It should be obvious that my POINT is that the Political Left does not recognize the constraints of Article I, Section 8, as fortified by the Tenth Amendment.

Anyone even vaguely familiar with the history of Constitutional Law knows that, prior to FDR, the USSC actually recognized the constraints of the Tenth Amendment, and FDR's nefarious strategy to nullify the Tenth Amendment was to pack the court with similarly-thinking political hacks, who would use their intellectual "gifts" to write opinions rendering the Tenth Amendment moot. They would write opinions claiming that the Feds had the power to create a compulsory retirement system, to create work programs (CCC, WPA), and many other things that prior Courts would have found grossly "unconstitutional."

Consider that in 1950, less than 10% of Federal outlays went to PEOPLE, and now federal handouts - all of which violate the Constitution - make up about half of outlays.

Did the Constitution change to permit these food, housing, education, and income subsidies by the Federal government? No it didn't. What changed was the willingness of the Court to allow Congress to flout the Constitution in order to move toward the socialist "Nanny State," which Leftist politicians and justices desired (and still desire).

Consider the following hypothetical: How would the State Legislatures react if a Constitutional Amendment were initiated to repeal the Tenth Amendment? (You all know, I assume, that the State Legislatures would have to ratify the amendment).

Repeal would basically mean that Congress could do anything it wanted. Which is what Liberals today believe is the case already.

Would the state legislatures ratify the amendment? Why or why not?

 

[DGS49]

Exhibit A:

"A bill heading to the president's desk grants veterans and their families automatic in-state status at all public colleges, potentially saving them time and money.

Great news for college-bound veterans and their families: Starting next year—the fall of 2015—veterans and their dependents will be able to pay low in-state tuition at any public university in the country."

Where in the hell does Congress get the power to pass such a law?

It commits STATE GOVERNMENTS to supplement the tuition of residents of 49 other states, JUST BE CAUSE CONGRESS THINKS IT'S A WAY OF BUYING VOTES!

The end is near.

 

[emilynghiem]

With all due respect, DGS49,
I have found that trying to talk logic with Liberals using the Constitution
is about like trying to reason with Atheists using the Bible.

It is rare to find one who is actually committed to follow the spirit of the laws
that they see as belonging to another group they are not part of.

The common ground or source of authority I've found most liberals using is political campaigns
to get elected leaders into office to push certain legislation by majority rule vote. They seem to understand
that. But very little of the Constitution really connects with them, again, like how Atheists are under natural laws instead of the sacred laws in the Bible;
the liberals I know who reject Conservatives, Christians and Constitutionalists are using some other route to establish and represent their policies.
That's fine, just like any other religion, but I do not feel this is fair, lawful or equally inclusive to impose either avenue onto opposing groups who establish their beliefs by another route.

I found out recently, what I thought was Democrats deriving "prochoice" defenses by citing either First Amendment religious freedom or due process, was really not invoked by Constitutional authority. The majority appear to be using the interpretation of their party, leaders and members like a RELIGION. They don't really respect Courts or Constitutional authority, but just what their party interprets from those sources.

It's more a Political Religion based on Party interpretation established through the media, similar to how the Pope decrees policy that doesn't derive from the Bible.

I don't see how else to address this but to go through Party leaders and address the Party.
Just like if you want to change Catholic policy, you don't depend on just the Bible or just pray through the spirit of Christ, but have to address the Catholic elders and their theology.

I'm willing to write up a complaint or petition to the Democrat Party to address
this issue of Political Religion and Ideology that is not derived directly from the Constitution.

I don't know where to begin to write it, but maybe focusing on the right to health care, ACA mandates, and also the issue over reparative therapy that brings up faith-based issues.

If we address CONCRETE examples, we can still teach the overall pattern going on, where Democrats and Liberals who do not believe in or connect with natural laws through God or Christ (on which the Constitution is supposed to be based) are somehow bypassing this and just using their connection with likeminded Political leaders and believers of the same things (such as health care being a fundamental right through government and not by free choice or free market charity or education/business) in order to establish their policy, similar to how religions establish interpretation of the Bible for their own denominations.

The USSC has no power to modify the Constitution, or to add new provisions, or to "void" provisions of the Constitution.

When they deign to address a case, their role is to look at the law in question, look at the case in question, and determine whether, in that case, the law has been applied according to the mandates of the Constitution.

It should be obvious that my POINT is that the Political Left does not recognize the constraints of Article I, Section 8, as fortified by the Tenth Amendment.

Anyone even vaguely familiar with the history of Constitutional Law knows that, prior to FDR, the USSC actually recognized the constraints of the Tenth Amendment, and FDR's nefarious strategy to nullify the Tenth Amendment was to pack the court with similarly-thinking political hacks, who would use their intellectual "gifts" to write opinions rendering the Tenth Amendment moot. They would write opinions claiming that the Feds had the power to create a compulsory retirement system, to create work programs (CCC, WPA), and many other things that prior Courts would have found grossly "unconstitutional."

Consider that in 1950, less than 10% of Federal outlays went to PEOPLE, and now federal handouts - all of which violate the Constitution - make up about half of outlays.

Did the Constitution change to permit these food, housing, education, and income subsidies by the Federal government? No it didn't. What changed was the willingness of the Court to allow Congress to flout the Constitution in order to move toward the socialist "Nanny State," which Leftist politicians and justices desired (and still desire).

Consider the following hypothetical: How would the State Legislatures react if a Constitutional Amendment were initiated to repeal the Tenth Amendment? (You all know, I assume, that the State Legislatures would have to ratify the amendment).

Repeal would basically mean that Congress could do anything it wanted. Which is what Liberals today believe is the case already.

Would the state legislatures ratify the amendment? Why or why not?

 

[Idadunno]

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

Congress has crossed the constitutional boundaries and should not have with the Patriot Act and its expansion.
The Constitution clearly defines Congress' jurisdiction in Article I, Section 8, but it is way too much to paste here.
Interpretation of the Constitution falls upon the Supreme Court if a decision is challenged. Considering we have a very corrupt and partisan SC, anything goes.
The trick is to present a case in a way that the justices cannot find a loophole around. For example--the EPA's attorney in pushing for tighter restrictions for gas emissions was wench-slapped by Scalia. Scalia made rude comments about what exactly is air pollution and actually twisted it to that a Frisbee flying through the air could be considered air pollution. The EPA attorney was not prepared for "personalities". The EPA won the case, but could have very easily lost it, as the group who tried to get stem cell (not genes) patents banned. Their language failed to make their case because they based it on the fact that gene patents were banned and that is irrelevant.
The ACA is and is not unconstitutional.
The SC declared it constitutional based on an interpretation. Congress has the right to tax the people, and the SC ruled the ACA as a tax--which is appropriate because it will cost the tax payers more in state and federal taxes since the bulk of the people "helped" by the ACA were pushed into Medicaid. The penalty those without insurance have to pay is also considered a tax... although Congress was nice and fixed it so that the IRS could not garnish wages, take your house, or have you imprisoned for not having insurance.
Those who support the ACA with the claim that they are tired of paying for uninsured people's medical bills--they were not paying for that. Hospitals and doctors write off a certain portion yearly regardless--just like any other business, they get a tax break from it. Prices are fixed according to investors, not people who do not have insurance. The ACA actually raised premiums and medical costs because a lot of people plan to get even richer.
Until Congress passes a new amendment striking down the ACA, or the SC rules it unconstitutional as extortion, we are stuck with it. The same goes for the Patriot Act.
The people allowed this by not paying attention and/or taking action against those who blindly and/or knowingly passed these bills into laws. The House reps have to approve all bills before the Senate can pass them into law for the president to sign. Your state reps have the power, and they are elected every two years. It is one thing to look at what your Senators are voting on, but people ignore what the House Reps vote on.
November is coming, get registered to vote, and research what each person running has done. Do not vote because of a party or popularity. Vote according to deeds.

 

[DGS49]

As my dear, sainted Mother used to say, "Vote early and often."

Democrat poll inspector, 7th Ward, Pittsburgh.

I still remember the last day of class in Con Law in law school (Duquesne Law School, 1982). The Professor had made a list of laws enacted in the preceding couple years and asked us where each of them was authorized in the Constitution. In each case, the correct answer was, "Nowhere."

We all laughed about it, but it's no laughing matter.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Exhibit A:

"A bill heading to the president's desk grants veterans and their families automatic in-state status at all public colleges, potentially saving them time and money.

Great news for college-bound veterans and their families: Starting next year—the fall of 2015—veterans and their dependents will be able to pay low in-state tuition at any public university in the country."

Where in the hell does Congress get the power to pass such a law?

It commits STATE GOVERNMENTS to supplement the tuition of residents of 49 other states, JUST BE CAUSE CONGRESS THINKS IT'S A WAY OF BUYING VOTES!

The end is near.

Veterans fought to defend everyone in all 50 states. They didn't fight to just defend the people in their own state.

This is about doing what is right for our veterans.

Trying to use veterans to turn this into a partisan issue to bash Congress about "states rights" is beneath contempt in my opinion.

Veterans have earned the right to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of where they currently reside.

Pick some other topic and leave the veterans out of this, thank you.