The Constitution - as viewed by ideology

[Sallow]

Add in the founder codified the ability to make changes to the Constitution as needed.
.

Make changes as needed via the Amendment Process, not make changes via fast & loose interpretation because the contents are inconvenient to whatever political regime happens to be in power. It's a living document in the sense that it can be amended not in the sense that it means whatever the screwballs in charge say it means.

I'll agree with this..

 

[regent]

Of course.

Add in the founder codified the ability to make changes to the Constitution as needed.

It was never meant to be "set in stone".

That's very progressive and forward thinking.

Except it hasn't been changed it has been ignored. Social Security is against the Constitution as is medicare, but ignorant courts have ruled otherwise. The NDAA is unconstitutional but no one is even challenging it.

No.....they weren't ignorant, FDR forced the Courts to rule in his favor.

If a president can force the Courts to rule in his favor, do all presidents force the Courts?
And how does the president do this forcing?

 

[NightFox]

.

This seemingly emotional attachment to an ever-increasing central government never ceases to amaze.

You and I have that in common Mac, I never understood the whole government worship thing, probably never will.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Except it hasn't been changed it has been ignored. Social Security is against the Constitution as is medicare, but ignorant courts have ruled otherwise. The NDAA is unconstitutional but no one is even challenging it.

No.....they weren't ignorant, FDR forced the Courts to rule in his favor.

If a president can force the Courts to rule in his favor, do all presidents force the Courts?
And how does the president do this forcing?

FDR had the political power to have congress add more seats to the SC. he threatened to do so.

 

[Sallow]

Ummm.. No, it's simply a modern take on classical liberal ideas and since the "liberal" moniker had been mutated to mean something completely incompatible with classical liberalism.......

Classical Liberalism is also relatively new and a made up idea.
.

Sorry incorrect, "classical" is added only to distinguish it from modern since the two are not compatible, John Locke is representative of "classical" liberal thought, Barack Obama is representative of "modern" (American) liberal thought, the two don't have much in common.

Liberalism wasn't born in American, nor was it born in the 20th century.

Again, as I've pointed out..Liberalism is in constant flux.

Locke invested in the slave trade..something a liberal today would never do.

 

[rightwinger]

Our founding fathers wanted a Government that does what needs to be done and does what makes sense

If they didn't, they were a bunch of fucking assholes

No...that would be you...they knew what an unfettered Gov could do to the populace.....they had experienced in first hand.

Any founding father who believed that our government should not do what "We the People" need was a complete and total fool

As is any founding father who thought he could define Government responsibilities to Americans 200 years from their death.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Our founding fathers wanted a Government that does what needs to be done and does what makes sense

If they didn't, they were a bunch of fucking assholes

No...that would be you...they knew what an unfettered Gov could do to the populace.....they had experienced in first hand.

Any founding father who believed that our government should not do what "We the People" need is a complete and total fool

As is any founding father who thought he could define Government responsibilities to Americans 200 years from their death.

They made sure the document could be changed. What they did not do is prevent the Courts from ignoring that requirement.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Madison and Hamilton believed the Constitution charter empowered whatever needed to be done by the national government, and they both thought the Bill of Rights was an unnecessary restriction on national power.

You got it exactly backwards Jake.

 

[Sallow]

Madison and Hamilton believed the Constitution charter empowered whatever needed to be done by the national government, and they both thought the Bill of Rights was an unnecessary restriction on national power.

You got it exactly backwards Jake.

Wait, what?

Hamilton was very big a centralized power..so much so he would have been okay with Washington being made a kind of King.

Madison thought it would be impossible to "enumerate" every power, so he argued that the enumeration should be broad so that central government would be able to quickly deal with issues as they arose.

These were smart guys, but they weren't perfect. Which is why it was a good thing there were various schools of thought when they cobbled together the Constitution. It wasn't a smooth process either. There were pretty bitter battles.

 

[rightwinger]

No...that would be you...they knew what an unfettered Gov could do to the populace.....they had experienced in first hand.

Any founding father who believed that our government should not do what "We the People" need is a complete and total fool

As is any founding father who thought he could define Government responsibilities to Americans 200 years from their death.

They made sure the document could be changed. What they did not do is prevent the Courts from ignoring that requirement.

Yes they set up a system to change the Constitution. But not change it to address every petty law that Congress implemented. In Article one they gave Congress the power to make laws. That is a very broad power that is checked by the courts and the veto power of the President

 

[Antares]

Except it hasn't been changed it has been ignored. Social Security is against the Constitution as is medicare, but ignorant courts have ruled otherwise. The NDAA is unconstitutional but no one is even challenging it.

No.....they weren't ignorant, FDR forced the Courts to rule in his favor.

If a president can force the Courts to rule in his favor, do all presidents force the Courts?
And how does the president do this forcing?

The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937[1] (frequently called the "court-packing plan")[2] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Roosevelt's purpose was to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that had been previously ruled unconstitutional.[3]The central and most controversial provision of the bill would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every sitting member over the age of 70 years and 6 months.

Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're welcome.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Yes they set up a system to change the Constitution. But not change it to address every petty law that Congress implemented. In Article one they gave Congress the power to make laws. That is a very broad power that is checked by the courts and the veto power of the President

To make laws covering a specific list of subjects. So long as they are within that list every thing is fine to the extent that they do not otnerwise violate an express prohibition. It is when they attempt to assert power over subjects which they have no power to assert that there is a problem.

 

[legaleagle_45]

The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937[1] (frequently called the "court-packing plan")[2] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Roosevelt's purpose was to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that had been previously ruled unconstitutional.[3]The central and most controversial provision of the bill would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every sitting member over the age of 70 years and 6 months.

Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're welcome.

A switch in time, saves 9.

 

[NightFox]

Again, as I've pointed out..Liberalism is in constant flux.

John Locke's classical liberal ideas are not in "constant flux" and modern libertarians trace their philosophical roots back to that mode of liberalism. Thus libertarianism is not a *new* thing it's a modern take on a very old thing.

What you call liberalism in the U.S. would be unrecognizable to the people that birthed liberal thought, what you're attempting to contend is that the color red is in a constant state of flux because some group of people want to change the color but keep the moniker, thus the moniker becomes meaningless.

Locke invested in the slave trade..something a liberal today would never do.

Locke's ideas provided quite a bit of the basis for the founding of our Republic, that he engaged in the slave trade is completely immaterial (he lived in the 17th century).

 

[rightwinger]

Yes they set up a system to change the Constitution. But not change it to address every petty law that Congress implemented. In Article one they gave Congress the power to make laws. That is a very broad power that is checked by the courts and the veto power of the President

To make laws covering a specific list of subjects. So long as they are within that list every thing is fine to the extent that they do not otnerwise violate an express prohibition. It is when they attempt to assert power over subjects which they have no power to assert that there is a problem.

The founding fathers did their very best to make a list of what they thought would be Federal responsibilities. They had no way of envisioning what capabilities a modern government would have.
There is an important check on the powers of Government. And that is the vote that We the People have to let government know they are not meeting our needs

That check has worked at directing the government we need for 200 years

 

[Antares]

Our founding fathers wanted a Government that does what needs to be done and does what makes sense

If they didn't, they were a bunch of fucking assholes

No...that would be you...they knew what an unfettered Gov could do to the populace.....they had experienced in first hand.

Any founding father who believed that our government should not do what "We the People" need was a complete and total fool

As is any founding father who thought he could define Government responsibilities to Americans 200 years from their death.

LOL, as decided by who?

You?
Obama?

Sorry no.....you are free to think of them any way you wish....but frankly it is youwho are the fool for thinking you know best for everyone else.

 

[rightwinger]

No...that would be you...they knew what an unfettered Gov could do to the populace.....they had experienced in first hand.

Any founding father who believed that our government should not do what "We the People" need was a complete and total fool

As is any founding father who thought he could define Government responsibilities to Americans 200 years from their death.

LOL, as decided by who?

You?
Obama?

Sorry no.....you are free to think of them any way you wish....but frankly it is youwho are the fool for thinking you know best for everyone else.

As decided by........We the People

 

[Contumacious]

The Founding Fathers did not want no government, they wanted limited government, and they correctly recognized that government is the greatest threat to our liberty, so they bent over backwards to limit it. So, here’s how today’s major parties and ideologies view it.

Wrong. The founders incorrectly bent over backwards to limit government in the Articles of Confederation,

but later coming to their senses,

they abandoned that 'imbecility', as Alexander Hamilton called it, and wrote a Constitution that established a much more powerful, central government.

So , you are claiming that Alexander Hamilton convinced the remaining Founding Fathers to create a behemoth welfare/warfare state?

.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Madison and Hamilton believed the Constitution charter empowered whatever needed to be done by the national government, and they both thought the Bill of Rights was an unnecessary restriction on national power.

You got it exactly backwards Jake.

Wait, what?

Hamilton was very big a centralized power..so much so he would have been okay with Washington being made a kind of King..

Irrelevant. He correctly articulated an objection to a Bill of Rights by asserting that the Federal government did not have the friggen power "to control the press" and if he put a restriction on the power of the feds to do something that they can not do, then it would be employed as a pretext to to assert that the feds have a power which they do not have. It is for this reason we have the 10th amendment.

Federalist 84... a more complete quote:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

[Madison thought it would be impossible to "enumerate" every power, so he argued that the enumeration should be broad so that central government would be able to quickly deal with issues as they arose..

Totally incorrect. Madison articulated a view that any attempt to enumerate all the rights in a Bill of Rights would be impossible and that people would assume by not listing those rights the governemnt would be able to violate those unenumerated rights. That is why we have a 9th amend.

You guys would be dangerrous around the Constitution, LOL... You seem to think the framers meant exactly the oppossite of what they actually meant.

 

[Darkwind]

The Founding Fathers did not want no government, they wanted limited government, and they correctly recognized that government is the greatest threat to our liberty, so they bent over backwards to limit it. So, here’s how today’s major parties and ideologies view it.

Wrong. The founders incorrectly bent over backwards to limit government in the Articles of Confederation,

but later coming to their senses,

they abandoned that 'imbecility', as Alexander Hamilton called it, and wrote a Constitution that established a much more powerful, central government.

So , you are claiming that Alexander Hamilton convinced the remaining Founding Fathers to create a behemoth welfare/warfare state?

.

You realize you are debating carby, right? You risk serous IQ droppage doing so. On a good day, he might be able to articulate his name, but will always be able to hate any race not his own, and defend the talking points of the anti_Constitutionalists.