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.
I am.
The power to tax and spend is the power to tax and to spend, not to tax and to spend -and- to create the programs to spend on. That's what the rest of the enumerated powers are for.
Yes. And the court's interpretation doesnt have a sound basis.
Its that way because they said its that way, and nothing more.
Okay.
However, from now when you are speaking about there not being authority in the Constitution for social programs, just remember that based on our system of government since Marbury vs. Madison, you are wrong - at least from an empirical point of view.
But.. I am NOT wrong in terms of what the constitution ACTUALLY says.
His entire argument rests on a SCotUS decision that, in and of itself, doesnt address the fundamental issue other than to say 'it says this because we say it says this'.ReillyT, excellent debate. You won easily on points even though they will never admit that.
His entire argument rests on a SCotUS decision that, in and of itself, doesnt address the fundamental issue other than to say 'it says this because we say it says this'.
That's not winning on points, that's an appeal to authority.
the historical task of the supreme court has been to interpret the constitution.
there are a wealth of particulars in life today that were beyond the imagination of the framers...but they wrote a document that was non-specific enough to be interpreted by following generations to keep it relevant.
The meaning of the constitution IS what the supreme court says it means. by definition. It may be an "appeal to authority", but it is also a statement of reality.
For example, what changed in the constitution between Plessy and Brown?
nothing changed in the document. lots changed in our country and our perceptions of race and fairness. Therefore, separate but equal is constitutional in 1896, and unconstitutional in 1954.
His entire argument rests on a SCotUS decision that, in and of itself, doesnt address the fundamental issue other than to say 'it says this because we say it says this'.
That's not winning on points, that's an appeal to authority.
So, essentially, a handful of black-robed individuals control our Constitution? They can interpret black to mean white and whatever else they deem to be true? I don't think so.No. It's a recognition that the interpretation has already been settled by the court. And while you may disagree with that interpretation and might enjoy debating the issues, the law is, in fact what the Court says it is.. no more, no less.
And that is why the great battles over justices and their interpretive style. If it didn't matter who the justices were, then anyone could just parrot back the words. It's their meaning and application which matter.
So, essentially, a handful of black-robed individuals control our Constitution? They can interpret black to mean white and whatever else they deem to be true? I don't think so.
Large government spending, Keynesian economics, worked both for Reagan and for Bush Jr, they both spent like there was no tomorrow. But did they spend for good is another question? Did either build up our infrastructure or did they only reward their cronies. Wage figures point towards the latter.It worked initially to bring a nation out of a catastrophic economic crisis and to mobilize for a massive war on multiple fronts. It then also worked in giving the government increasing amounts of power over the lives of individuals as well as allowing socialists to gain more and more influence over our nation, slowly destroying it from the inside and corrupting the priciples that it was founded upon.
On your other statement: The most prosperous era of the American economy has been since the 1980's up to now. Taxes were cut in the 80's. Maybe it's a coincidence. Also, since the Bush tax cuts, our government has been recieving record revenues, unemployment is the lowest in over two decades, and the stock market went over 14,000.
Oh, please, can we have communism now? It's our only hope!
So, essentially, a handful of black-robed individuals control our Constitution? They can interpret black to mean white and whatever else they deem to be true? I don't think so.
So, essentially, a handful of black-robed individuals control our Constitution? They can interpret black to mean white and whatever else they deem to be true? I don't think so.
Well, I think you are wrong about your interpretation of what the Constitution says, as I don't think there is a dispute about what the Constitution actually says. Anyone can look pull up the language.
Actually, I won't say you are wrong. Ultimately, it is a question of preferences and value judgments and theories of interpretation, to which there is no "right" answer (except the USSC, for practical purposes). I will just say that we disagree.
However, we have a system of government where the USSC makes the final interpretative decision, and in this case they have, so... that is that. For all practical purposes, the issue is decided - although it can be interesting to argue about anyway.
So, essentially, a handful of black-robed individuals control our Constitution? They can interpret black to mean white and whatever else they deem to be true? I don't think so.
Actually it's the reason that precedents may be overturned, though it's rare, indeed.
Ummm... thats kind of the point of the problem isn't it? Words mean things. They mean what they mean by the people who wrote them at the time they wrote them. They do not change with the times or according to new theories. They say what they say and if you say they mean something else, it is called "misinterpretation."
That assumes that the party that wrote the words was of one mind, or that we have any clear knowledge of their intention. However, we know that the Constitution was written by many people who felt differently about different issues, so I don't know if there is a "right" interpretation in with respect to each clause.
