The Tea Party loves the Constitution?

[Liberty]

anyone who has studied the era knows that FDR's new deal was enacted right after the economy began to recover...then the new deal flat lined it for over two more years. The free market will fix itself. Government can ONLY damage, never fix. That is history.

LOL...Sure it did

Same old...."It would have worked better if you had done nothing" I guess Hoover was right....Prosperity was just around the corner

What we do know is that all leading economic indicators got better after FDR enacted his policies

History is the truth, and those who argue against history are useful idiots, have willfully chosen to be fools, or both. I came to USMB to discuss issues with people who knew the basics, yet all I find are people that need to be educated in the most basic of bases of all issues. Why I waste my time, I'll never know.

 

[Liberty]

history is a bitch for a socialist liberal.

also, government doesn't pay for your schools. Your community does via taxes. Come on, thats 101.

My local community is not part of the Government?

I really hope you are just a troll...for if you really are as stupid as you act, I feel every amount of pity I can for those that care about you. God bless them for their sacrifice.

 

[Intense]

care to argue those things with me? cause nothing that was said was incorrect.

and i'm not aware of the magna carta being binding on the U.S.

Be specific, the Magna Carta would have been binding to the Colonies, correct????? What is your point about it?

The unifying point that separated us from every Nation Jillian was Inalienable Rights Jillian.
I would love to discuss any topic you want, with you. Let it be your platform or argument, not someone else's flawed position.

You know what I have wanted to discuss with you for a long time from a non confrontational position was was Marbury VS Madison. Starting with the virtues of each side of the argument.

everyone gets their positions, at least in part, from others. in my own case, a lot of it from my teachers and professors. i'd say that's preferable to people who get their information on what the constitution is from rush, beck and levin, et al.

i'm happy to discuss almost any issue with you. and you and i have no rancor between us.

but .... what inalienable rights? there weren't any rights at all unless you were a white male landowner.

as for marbury. the reality is it was the correct decision and was the only thing that allowed the court to do the job it was intended to do. other than as a study of what the court is there for, i'm not sure what you want to discuss. it's been the law since, when? 1803?

oh...and congrats on being a mod.

The Constitution gave Voice to Male land owners through the vote. It gave protection under the Law to most. We were divided from the start on Slavery, it took a long time to correct, from Liberty, to Suffrage, yet the foundation held.

On Judicial Review, I support it. I also support 3 Equal distinct Branches of Government, meaning there are limits and boundaries to powers and Jurisdictions. The one thing that scares me with Judicial Review is when a Court crosses the line from reality to Imagined. There is a distinction. The "What If", may be taken into account, but not at the expense of lost reason and priority, is applying Justice to the matter at hand. Just a thought.


From Wiki... I apologize for that. Some of the points seem valid.


Criticism
At the time Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in this case, saying that if this view of judicial power became accepted, it would be "placing us under the despotism of an oligarchy."[23] Jefferson expanded on this in a letter he wrote some 20 years later to Justice William Johnson, whom he had appointed to the court in 1804.[24]

Some legal scholars have questioned the legal reasoning of Marshall's opinion. They argue that Marshall selectively quoted the Judiciary Act of 1789, interpreting it to grant the Supreme Court the power to hear writs of mandamus on original jurisdiction.[25] These scholars argue that there is little connection between the notion of original jurisdiction and the Supreme Court, and note that the Act seems to affirm the Court's power to exercise only appellate jurisdiction.[26] Furthermore, it has been argued that the Supreme Court should have been able to issue the writ on original jurisdiction based on the fact that Article III of the Constitution granted it the right to review on original jurisdiction "all cases affecting . . . public ministers and consuls," and that James Madison, Secretary of State at the time and defendant of the suit, should have fallen into that category of a "public minister [or] consul."[27]

Questions have also frequently been raised about the logic of Marshall's argument for judicial review, for example by Alexander Bickel in his book The Least Dangerous Branch. Bickel argues that Marshall's argument implies an unrealistically mechanical view of jurisprudence, one which suggests that the Court has an absolute duty to strike down every law it finds violative of the Constitution. Under Marshall's conception of the judicial process in Marbury, judges themselves have no independent agency and can never take into account the consequences of their actions when deciding cases—a notion that has been attacked by Richard Posner.

Marbury can also be criticized on grounds that it was improper for the Court to consider any issues beyond jurisdiction. After concluding that the Court lacked jurisdiction in the case, the further review regarding the substantive issues presented was arguably improper.[28] Also, it has been argued that Justice Marshall should have recused himself on the grounds that he was still acting Secretary of State at the time the commissions were to be delivered and it was his brother, James Marshall, who was charged with delivering a number of the commissions.[29]

Because the Constitution lacks a clear statement authorizing the Federal courts to nullify the acts of coequal branches, critics contend that the argument for judicial review must rely on a significant gloss on the Constitution's terms. Despite such criticisms of Marbury v. Madison, judicial review has been accepted in the American legal community.

Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jillian]

The Constitution gave Voice to Male land owners through the vote. It gave protection under the Law to most. We were divided from the start on Slavery, it took a long time to correct, from Liberty, to Suffrage, yet the foundation held.

On Judicial Review, I support it. I also support 3 Equal distinct Branches of Government, meaning there are limits and boundaries to powers and Jurisdictions. The one thing that scares me with Judicial Review is when a Court crosses the line from reality to Imagined. There is a distinction. The "What If", may be taken into account, but not at the expense of lost reason and priority, is applying Justice to the matter at hand. Just a thought.

Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i deleted the stuff from wiki, not because it bothers me, but because it was taking up a lot of space.

first, how can there be 'protection' under the law if you're denied a vote. women and blacks aren't children and the constitution guarantees EQUAL protection. The founders were of their age and were radicals in that age. but they were not egalitarian and did not have any concept of equality.

as for a court crossing from reality to fantasy... i'd suggest that judicial activism is when you disagree with the determination of the court. the constitution was intended to be interpreted. it isn't a bible and it is specifically left vague in many areas specifically so it could cover circumstances that the founders could never contemplate.

what is crossing from reality to fantasy? the court protecting my right to purchase birth contro? (griswold v conn); the court outlawing anti-miscegenation laws? (loving v va); the court protecting my right to reproductive choice? (roe v wade). each of these is at least consistent with the idea of individual liberties which is REALLY what the constitution is intended to protect.

or is this crossing from fantasy to reality??? pretending that corporations are people for the purpose of the first amendment? (citizens united). there is nothing in the history of the constitution or of the founders words that indicate that corporations were the entity whose 'liberties' were intended for protection. in fact, the boston tea party and the uprising against the east india company would indicate the exact opposite.

i know what the criticisms are of marbury v madison. but not knowing what 'scholars' they're talking about, i really can't comment on their scholarship. what i do know is that but for the court's interpretation of marbury v madison, the court would be powerless and congress would be the judge of the constitutionality of its actions. that doesn't make sense from either a pragmatic or ideologic perspective, imo.

equal and distinct branch of government, but that means that means only that each branch has its role. and each branch is supposed to be a check on the others.

the role of the court is to be the last gasp of protection of the minority, when an overzealous and politics driven legislature and executive branch overreaches. this is a simple fact that this current incarnation of the court seems to ignore with impunity.

 

[Intense]

It was a Democrat, FDR, who put us on a path to become a modern society. It was the conservatives of the day who had to be pulled, kicking and screaming into the 20th Century.

Since that time, the US has become the worlds predominant military and economic superpower

From my perspective, Roosevelt secured the power and position of Government, Government Workers, Union Workers, and the Oligarchy Powers of the day. He made everyone else pay for it, some with all they possessed. Thankfully he set up bread lines and soup kitchens to feed those his policies dispossessed. Sort of reminds me of "We The Living", by Ayn Rand. By the way, who were the biggest outside contributors to the Russian Revolution????? Look for the Union label???? Got milk?

As a political theorist, Ayn Rand was a terrific novelist.

roosevelt did what he had to to get the country out of the great depression.

From his perspective, he did his best. My question is "Was Roosevelt's Remedy compatible with our form of Government or did it cause harm to our structure?" Most of us don't take advice or criticism well, I doubt he was an exception.

 

[jillian]

From my perspective, Roosevelt secured the power and position of Government, Government Workers, Union Workers, and the Oligarchy Powers of the day. He made everyone else pay for it, some with all they possessed. Thankfully he set up bread lines and soup kitchens to feed those his policies dispossessed. Sort of reminds me of "We The Living", by Ayn Rand. By the way, who were the biggest outside contributors to the Russian Revolution????? Look for the Union label???? Got milk?

As a political theorist, Ayn Rand was a terrific novelist.

roosevelt did what he had to to get the country out of the great depression.

From his perspective, he did his best. My question is "Was Roosevelt's Remedy compatible with our form of Government or did it cause harm to our structure?" Most of us don't take advice or criticism well, I doubt he was an exception.

why wouldn't it be compatible? there is a difference between form of government and economic system.

you do what's best for your people. it's really that simple, imo.

 

[Intense]

The Constitution gave Voice to Male land owners through the vote. It gave protection under the Law to most. We were divided from the start on Slavery, it took a long time to correct, from Liberty, to Suffrage, yet the foundation held.

On Judicial Review, I support it. I also support 3 Equal distinct Branches of Government, meaning there are limits and boundaries to powers and Jurisdictions. The one thing that scares me with Judicial Review is when a Court crosses the line from reality to Imagined. There is a distinction. The "What If", may be taken into account, but not at the expense of lost reason and priority, is applying Justice to the matter at hand. Just a thought.

Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i deleted the stuff from wiki, not because it bothers me, but because it was taking up a lot of space.

first, how can there be 'protection' under the law if you're denied a vote. women and blacks aren't children and the constitution guarantees EQUAL protection. The founders were of their age and were radicals in that age. but they were not egalitarian and did not have any concept of equality.

as for a court crossing from reality to fantasy... i'd suggest that judicial activism is when you disagree with the determination of the court. the constitution was intended to be interpreted. it isn't a bible and it is specifically left vague in many areas specifically so it could cover circumstances that the founders could never contemplate.

what is crossing from reality to fantasy? the court protecting my right to purchase birth contro? (griswold v conn); the court outlawing anti-miscegenation laws? (loving v va); the court protecting my right to reproductive choice? (roe v wade). each of these is at least consistent with the idea of individual liberties which is REALLY what the constitution is intended to protect.

or is this crossing from fantasy to reality??? pretending that corporations are people for the purpose of the first amendment? (citizens united). there is nothing in the history of the constitution or of the founders words that indicate that corporations were the entity whose 'liberties' were intended for protection. in fact, the boston tea party and the uprising against the east india company would indicate the exact opposite.

i know what the criticisms are of marbury v madison. but not knowing what 'scholars' they're talking about, i really can't comment on their scholarship. what i do know is that but for the court's interpretation of marbury v madison, the court would be powerless and congress would be the judge of the constitutionality of its actions. that doesn't make sense from either a pragmatic or ideologic perspective, imo.

equal and distinct branch of government, but that means that means only that each branch has its role. and each branch is supposed to be a check on the others.

the role of the court is to be the last gasp of protection of the minority, when an overzealous and politics driven legislature and executive branch overreaches. this is a simple fact that this current incarnation of the court seems to ignore with impunity.

first, how can there be 'protection' under the law if you're denied a vote. women and blacks aren't children and the constitution guarantees EQUAL protection. The founders were of their age and were radicals in that age. but they were not egalitarian and did not have any concept of equality.

Easy, through Statute, through the rule of law. Being denied participation in the framing of a law has no connection to the protections applied under it what so ever. If that were the case, I could argue everyone having Powers less than the President, is being denied Unalienable Rights. The realization of Unalienable Right's is that they are born of Our Creator, by what ever name one chooses to call him, or not, and that they are recognized by Society and Government. As Individuals, some did, at least in some sense, as a Government Body, they were limited in what had support.



as for a court crossing from reality to fantasy... i'd suggest that judicial activism is when you disagree with the determination of the court. the constitution was intended to be interpreted. it isn't a bible and it is specifically left vague in many areas specifically so it could cover circumstances that the founders could never contemplate.

From my perspective Judicial Activism is when the Court oversteps it's authority. Decisions are reversed all the time, so it's not like it is even uncommon. Moral absolutism V.S. Moral Relativism. Circumstance, application, remedy are unique, not the formula, necessarily, but the application. There are boundaries that should not be crossed. Method does not by itself justify, even though the cause may be justified, sloppy administration of proclaimed justice causes more problems.



what is crossing from reality to fantasy? the court protecting my right to purchase birth contro? (griswold v conn); the court outlawing anti-miscegenation laws? (loving v va); the court protecting my right to reproductive choice? (roe v wade). each of these is at least consistent with the idea of individual liberties which is REALLY what the constitution is intended to protect.

I have seen arguments against Griswold from people that support abortion. It wasn't the perfect argument aside. That aside, being the issue, abortion, guns, busing, voting , shouldn't reason prevail? There are boundaries to what is acceptable and what is not. Even the Will of the people in Super Majority numbers trump the power of any Executive, Legislature, Court, or Agency. The will of the People is Paramount. One of the roles of the Courts, in a sense, is Conscience. It's hard discerning what is right from what is legal, and that is why things are challenged. Reform is always a part of the equation. Guide lines, limits, boundaries. There are those that would argue that Abortion should be legal up to the second year after birth? I personally find that shocking. Personally I do believe that the Abortion issue should have stayed under State jurisdiction, giving flexibility and access through travel if necessary. Part of the experiment of Federalism was to try things and compare, learning both from what works and what doesn't on a small scale. Personally I also think, being Pro Life, that the Right to choose to have an abortion is personal, and should be decided either way, by the Individual, freely, not by force of law. On Birth Control, we are on the same page.


or is this crossing from fantasy to reality??? pretending that corporations are people for the purpose of the first amendment? (citizens united). there is nothing in the history of the constitution or of the founders words that indicate that corporations were the entity whose 'liberties' were intended for protection. in fact, the boston tea party and the uprising against the east india company would indicate the exact opposite.

From my perspective, voice is voice, the content of the message paramount to the source. I want the Right to decide what is relevant to my life, to suppress witness or knowledge, or relevant pertinent information infringes on that. There is that which serves Justice and that which serves schemes, compounded one on another. People get together in different groups to voice. There are different kinds of Lobby's each serving their own interest, how is that different from business having a say? Are we about a fair playing field? Shouldn't all who are effected have a voice? Challenge it through voice, not mandate.

It was Hamilton that was so bent on the National Bank, some Federalist he was. The unholy alliance between Government and Monopoly, forever corrupting what was the impartial referee.



i know what the criticisms are of marbury v madison. but not knowing what 'scholars' they're talking about, i really can't comment on their scholarship. what i do know is that but for the court's interpretation of marbury v madison, the court would be powerless and congress would be the judge of the constitutionality of its actions. that doesn't make sense from either a pragmatic or ideologic perspective, imo.


I'm mixed on it. What it boils down to for me was did Madison as the incoming President have the authority to ignore unfulfilled Court Appointments of the preceding President??? I see merits on both sides of the issue. I am truly undecided.



equal and distinct branch of government, but that means that means only that each branch has its role. and each branch is supposed to be a check on the others.

the role of the court is to be the last gasp of protection of the minority, when an overzealous and politics driven legislature and executive branch overreaches. this is a simple fact that this current incarnation of the court seems to ignore with impunity.

I totally support checks and balances, accountability, disclosure, procedure, and record. I support boundaries too. I know you do too.

The Court is the last resort for the victim to seek justice. It's that simple. What effect should , whether the should what majority or minority the victim belongs to, or how much the victim own's have on the impartial administration of justice? None.

 

[Intense]

As a political theorist, Ayn Rand was a terrific novelist.

roosevelt did what he had to to get the country out of the great depression.

From his perspective, he did his best. My question is "Was Roosevelt's Remedy compatible with our form of Government or did it cause harm to our structure?" Most of us don't take advice or criticism well, I doubt he was an exception.

why wouldn't it be compatible? there is a difference between form of government and economic system.

you do what's best for your people. it's really that simple, imo.

Do you think somebody ought to tell GE?

Seriously Hamilton changed that. Too many economic ties between Government and Big Business. All focused on exploitation and keeping us in line. Roosevelt was a Progressive, You probably are too. I lean very heavily towards Madison, and believe it or not, Thoreau.

 

[jillian]

From his perspective, he did his best. My question is "Was Roosevelt's Remedy compatible with our form of Government or did it cause harm to our structure?" Most of us don't take advice or criticism well, I doubt he was an exception.

why wouldn't it be compatible? there is a difference between form of government and economic system.

you do what's best for your people. it's really that simple, imo.

Do you think somebody ought to tell GE?

Seriously Hamilton changed that. Too many economic ties between Government and Big Business. All focused on exploitation and keeping us in line. Roosevelt was a Progressive, You probably are too. I lean very heavily towards Madison, and believe it or not, Thoreau.

'progressive' then is different from 'progressive' now... same as republicans today are not the same as republicans even when i was a kid. so i'm not sure exactly how you define progressive

i tend not to identify my politics with founding fathers because i don't see them as any different than our politicians today. they gave us a great document.... one they intended to live and breathe and grow with us.

times change and things that are moral in one era are not necessarily moral in the next. the definition of equality under the law meant one thing is 1890 when the court decided plessy and another in 1950 when they decided brown. you can't separate constitutional analysis from the changing meanings of words.

i suspect that a lot of the differences in the way people see things are based in geographical location (e.g., urban vs rural) or religious belief or non-belief.

for example... we are no longer an agrarian society favoring landed gentry.

we are no longer a society that views women and blacks as lesser beings.

whether something is 'equal' or not has to be viewed in that context.

i suspect that a lot of how i view the world comes from the fact that my religious beliefs are based in questions... not answers...

there is an old story (well, it might be written in the talmud for all i know)... but the story goes like this... a bunch of rabbis were sitting around the table arguing over what G-d intended when he handed down a certain law. the discussion got heated and suddenly G-d joined the arguing rabbis and said 'what i meant when i handed down that law was......'

at which point the rabbis cut him off and said, well, thanks but no thanks. you gave it to us. so it's for us to interpret. G-d shrugged and agreed.

that's pretty much how i feel about the constitution.

it was given to us by men who were briliant and flawed and who saw the world very differently from the way we do today.

it was given to us and it's ours to interpret... within certain guidelines... but ours to interpret nonetheless.

 

[Intense]

why wouldn't it be compatible? there is a difference between form of government and economic system.

you do what's best for your people. it's really that simple, imo.

Do you think somebody ought to tell GE?

Seriously Hamilton changed that. Too many economic ties between Government and Big Business. All focused on exploitation and keeping us in line. Roosevelt was a Progressive, You probably are too. I lean very heavily towards Madison, and believe it or not, Thoreau.

'progressive' then is different from 'progressive' now... same as republicans today are not the same as republicans even when i was a kid. so i'm not sure exactly how you define progressive

i tend not to identify my politics with founding fathers because i don't see them as any different than our politicians today. they gave us a great document.... one they intended to live and breathe and grow with us.

times change and things that are moral in one era are not necessarily moral in the next. the definition of equality under the law meant one thing is 1890 when the court decided plessy and another in 1950 when they decided brown. you can't separate constitutional analysis from the changing meanings of words.

i suspect that a lot of the differences in the way people see things are based in geographical location (e.g., urban vs rural) or religious belief or non-belief.

for example... we are no longer an agrarian society favoring landed gentry.

we are no longer a society that views women and blacks as lesser beings.

whether something is 'equal' or not has to be viewed in that context.

i suspect that a lot of how i view the world comes from the fact that my religious beliefs are based in questions... not answers...

there is an old story (well, it might be written in the talmud for all i know)... but the story goes like this... a bunch of rabbis were sitting around the table arguing over what G-d intended when he handed down a certain law. the discussion got heated and suddenly G-d joined the arguing rabbis and said 'what i meant when i handed down that law was......'

at which point the rabbis cut him off and said, well, thanks but no thanks. you gave it to us. so it's for us to interpret. G-d shrugged and agreed.

that's pretty much how i feel about the constitution.

it was given to us by men who were briliant and flawed and who saw the world very differently from the way we do today.



it was given to us and it's ours to interpret... within certain guidelines... but ours to interpret nonetheless.

Well stated. My thing is that when there is a need for Amendment, there is no substitute. Every Jurisdiction has it's boundary. Where there is no means, yet there is a justified need, the mechanism is developed through consent and due process. When we distinguish between the right to interpret, abusing that power, and remedy, we serve justice in the present, adapting to circumstance, which is only reasonable. When we use power to deny reason, there will always be repercussions. That is only natural. That's why God made Lawyers.

 

[jillian]

Easy, through Statute, through the rule of law. Being denied participation in the framing of a law has no connection to the protections applied under it what so ever. If that were the case, I could argue everyone having Powers less than the President, is being denied Unalienable Rights. The realization of Unalienable Right's is that they are born of Our Creator, by what ever name one chooses to call him, or not, and that they are recognized by Society and Government. As Individuals, some did, at least in some sense, as a Government Body, they were limited in what had support.

absolutely, positively not. if something is a right then the government can't infringe on it, but neither should anyone have to wait for congress to enact it.

additionally, the whole point of the court is to make sure that the majority doesn't infringe on the minority.

your solution is counterintuitive.

there is no such thing as inalienable rights. though it's a nice philosophical construct. rights are as close or as far as the stroke of a pen, the vote of the legislature or the determination of the court.

From my perspective Judicial Activism is when the Court oversteps it's authority. Decisions are reversed all the time, so it's not like it is even uncommon. Moral absolutism V.S. Moral Relativism. Circumstance, application, remedy are unique, not the formula, necessarily, but the application. There are boundaries that should not be crossed. Method does not by itself justify, even though the cause may be justified, sloppy administration of proclaimed justice causes more problems.

that's tail wagging dog... no one thinks the court is exceeding its authority unless you disagree with the court's ruling. the rest i'm afraid i'm not following. because i'm not following, i'm afraid i don't see what it has to do with constitutional construction.

I have seen arguments against Griswold from people that support abortion. It wasn't the perfect argument aside. That aside, being the issue, abortion, guns, busing, voting , shouldn't reason prevail? There are boundaries to what is acceptable and what is not. Even the Will of the people in Super Majority numbers trump the power of any Executive, Legislature, Court, or Agency. The will of the People is Paramount. One of the roles of the Courts, in a sense, is Conscience. It's hard discerning what is right from what is legal, and that is why things are challenged. Reform is always a part of the equation. Guide lines, limits, boundaries. There are those that would argue that Abortion should be legal up to the second year after birth? I personally find that shocking. Personally I do believe that the Abortion issue should have stayed under State jurisdiction, giving flexibility and access through travel if necessary. Part of the experiment of Federalism was to try things and compare, learning both from what works and what doesn't on a small scale. Personally I also think, being Pro Life, that the Right to choose to have an abortion is personal, and should be decided either way, by the Individual, freely, not by force of law. On Birth Control, we are on the same page.

again, the 'will of the people' is 100% irrelevant to what is constitutionally guaranteed. unless you can get past that concept, then you aren't following what the constitution intends. everything in the constitution is geared so that governemtn, whether by legislature, executive, or majority vote or super-majority vote can NEVER infringe on the rights of people.

in other words... the constitution doesn't care what the majority wants... that's the point. if it did, we wouldn't need a constitution.

as an aside... under roe v wade, abortion IS a personal decision. the right-to-lifers have workes since roe came down to make that choice be mandated by government. and for the record, i've never heard anyone criticize the result in Griswold.

From my perspective, voice is voice, the content of the message paramount to the source. I want the Right to decide what is relevant to my life, to suppress witness or knowledge, or relevant pertinent information infringes on that. There is that which serves Justice and that which serves schemes, compounded one on another. People get together in different groups to voice. There are different kinds of Lobby's each serving their own interest, how is that different from business having a say? Are we about a fair playing field? Shouldn't all who are effected have a voice? Challenge it through voice, not mandate.

voice is NOT voice... person has meaning under the first amendment. a dog is not a person. a corporation is not a person. a car is not a person notwithstanding the fact that particular vehicles are individually named as respondent in certain replevin actions.

here again... you like the result so it doesn't offend you. i think it's the most disgusting decision i've seen come down from the court since i graduated law school.

It was Hamilton that was so bent on the National Bank, some Federalist he was. The unholy alliance between Government and Monopoly, forever corrupting what was the impartial referee.

so how could you think corrupting the system by flooding it with the money of multinational corporations and not require reporting of where the money comes from is a good thing???

I'm mixed on it. What it boils down to for me was did Madison as the incoming President have the authority to ignore unfulfilled Court Appointments of the preceding President??? I see merits on both sides of the issue. I am truly undecided.

well, i understand that from a philosophical pov. but really, no one is ever touching the decision in marbury. so as an intellectual exercise discussing whether it was right or wrong can be fun.

but realistically, it doesn't really matter.

I totally support checks and balances, accountability, disclosure, procedure, and record. I support boundaries too. I know you do too.

The Court is the last resort for the victim to seek justice. It's that simple. What effect should , whether the should what majority or minority the victim belongs to, or how much the victim own's have on the impartial administration of justice? None.

ah... there's the rub... and here's what you're missing. the majority doesn't NEED the court's protection from the minority. the minority has no ability to impose its will on the many. it;s the MINORITY that is protected from the tyranny of the majority. That is where the court's intervention is required.

The Court is supposed to be the last protection of individual rights infringed upon by the majority.

and THAT is where the right misses the boat. the court was never supposed to be conservative in regard to protecting individual rights.

 

[drsmith1072]

A. Yes. Liberty as he described is NOT something modern liberals choose to embrace. Not by a long shot. Limited government, rights endowed by God, a government of men is derived by men, etc etc etc. Modern liberalism promotes more government control and more government power, the exact opposite of classical liberalism.



B. A spade is a spade.

C. its so obvious we have a gangster government. bailouts? buying out GM? Dealerships had to beg their senators to stay open. Is this not gangster? Where is the private sector? Come on, think a little bit.

A. Basically..like most conservatives..you are cherry picking through Locke. That's understandable since if you'd actually read anything by him..in full..you'd know that Liberalism isn't so narrow.

B. Then..exactly what do you mean by "Promote"..this should be good.

C. "Gangsters" don't wait for a vote. They promote their agendas by violence or the threat there of..think a little bit.

A. Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia = classical, american founders liberalism
Social liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia = modern social liberalism

B. Promote means to encourage through private means, and by the free market. This is outlined in one of the federalist papers that I do not recall the specific paper, however it is mentioned by Hamilton I believe, that to promote simply means to encourage the free market to work innovative, well, and fair.

Edit: sorry, its Madison and its federalist #45. Will edit with quote shortly.

Edit#2: Here is the full paragraph to provide context:
It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us. Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 45

C. Agree to disagree I suppose, since the term is heavily based on opinion more than fact, I will concede. Personally I find it accurate, but can understand how others do not.

Uh I only have one real question since sallow is handling you quite clearly on all of the other points but how does the federal government PROMOTE through private means and by the free market?? For the government to get involved in private means would be called socialism by most on the right and how can you promote something in a market that is supposed to be free of governmental influence??

BTW your quote does not say what you claimed it did. But nice try.

 

[Intense]

Easy, through Statute, through the rule of law. Being denied participation in the framing of a law has no connection to the protections applied under it what so ever. If that were the case, I could argue everyone having Powers less than the President, is being denied Unalienable Rights. The realization of Unalienable Right's is that they are born of Our Creator, by what ever name one chooses to call him, or not, and that they are recognized by Society and Government. As Individuals, some did, at least in some sense, as a Government Body, they were limited in what had support.

absolutely, positively not. if something is a right then the government can't infringe on it, but neither should anyone have to wait for congress to enact it.

additionally, the whole point of the court is to make sure that the majority doesn't infringe on the minority.

your solution is counterintuitive.

there is no such thing as inalienable rights. though it's a nice philosophical construct. rights are as close or as far as the stroke of a pen, the vote of the legislature or the determination of the court.

From my perspective Judicial Activism is when the Court oversteps it's authority. Decisions are reversed all the time, so it's not like it is even uncommon. Moral absolutism V.S. Moral Relativism. Circumstance, application, remedy are unique, not the formula, necessarily, but the application. There are boundaries that should not be crossed. Method does not by itself justify, even though the cause may be justified, sloppy administration of proclaimed justice causes more problems.

that's tail wagging dog... no one thinks the court is exceeding its authority unless you disagree with the court's ruling. the rest i'm afraid i'm not following. because i'm not following, i'm afraid i don't see what it has to do with constitutional construction.



again, the 'will of the people' is 100% irrelevant to what is constitutionally guaranteed. unless you can get past that concept, then you aren't following what the constitution intends. everything in the constitution is geared so that governemtn, whether by legislature, executive, or majority vote or super-majority vote can NEVER infringe on the rights of people.

in other words... the constitution doesn't care what the majority wants... that's the point. if it did, we wouldn't need a constitution.

as an aside... under roe v wade, abortion IS a personal decision. the right-to-lifers have workes since roe came down to make that choice be mandated by government. and for the record, i've never heard anyone criticize the result in Griswold.




voice is NOT voice... person has meaning under the first amendment. a dog is not a person. a corporation is not a person. a car is not a person notwithstanding the fact that particular vehicles are individually named as respondent in certain replevin actions.

here again... you like the result so it doesn't offend you. i think it's the most disgusting decision i've seen come down from the court since i graduated law school.



so how could you think corrupting the system by flooding it with the money of multinational corporations and not require reporting of where the money comes from is a good thing???

I'm mixed on it. What it boils down to for me was did Madison as the incoming President have the authority to ignore unfulfilled Court Appointments of the preceding President??? I see merits on both sides of the issue. I am truly undecided.

well, i understand that from a philosophical pov. but really, no one is ever touching the decision in marbury. so as an intellectual exercise discussing whether it was right or wrong can be fun.

but realistically, it doesn't really matter.

I totally support checks and balances, accountability, disclosure, procedure, and record. I support boundaries too. I know you do too.

The Court is the last resort for the victim to seek justice. It's that simple. What effect should , whether the should what majority or minority the victim belongs to, or how much the victim own's have on the impartial administration of justice? None.

ah... there's the rub... and here's what you're missing. the majority doesn't NEED the court's protection from the minority. the minority has no ability to impose its will on the many. it;s the MINORITY that is protected from the tyranny of the majority. That is where the court's intervention is required.

The Court is supposed to be the last protection of individual rights infringed upon by the majority.

and THAT is where the right misses the boat. the court was never supposed to be conservative in regard to protecting individual rights.

All victims need justice Jillian, we are all protected. Shit happens, the jails are full of people that are predatory. Civil Right's are a part of the Court, a part of something much more comprehensive, than the rights of a minority. We are all Human Beings first. Failure to recognize that, screwing with the balance of right and wrong, has repercussions and they are not pretty. Unalienable Right, not special privilege covers Civil Right's completely.
It is about the protection of Liberty, not deciding who is subservient to who.

 

[drsmith1072]

No, they don't. Idiot.

Oh really?

How do they feel about Muslims building a Mosque two blocks from ground zero?
How do they feel about gay rights?
How do they feel about citizenship for Mexicans born in this country?

1. It is legal, but distasteful.
2. State issue, vote on it.
3. Legal immigration by ANYONE in the world is fine. If you're illegal...well people have differing opinions. Usually a common sense minded individual would prefer those that break the law to be punished in some way though.

Any other brain busters?

1. Lot's of things are distasteful but that doesn't mean that it's justification for stopping it from being built even as you proclaim that you are all for the constitution, America and protecting people's rights. They have a right to build and no one should be able to stop them from doing so.

2. How is a person's rights considered a state issue??

3. You didn't really answer the question that was asked. according to the constitution if you are born here you are a citizen and that is what was asked about. Why respond with a strawman argument??

You are good at providing responses but you really don't ever REALLY answer the question that was actually asked.

 

[Intense]

Oh really?

How do they feel about Muslims building a Mosque two blocks from ground zero?
How do they feel about gay rights?
How do they feel about citizenship for Mexicans born in this country?

1. It is legal, but distasteful.
2. State issue, vote on it.
3. Legal immigration by ANYONE in the world is fine. If you're illegal...well people have differing opinions. Usually a common sense minded individual would prefer those that break the law to be punished in some way though.

Any other brain busters?

1. Lot's of things are distasteful but that doesn't mean that it's justification for stopping it from being built even as you proclaim that you are all for the constitution, America and protecting people's rights. They have a right to build and no one should be able to stop them from doing so.

2. How is a person's rights considered a state issue??

3. You didn't really answer the question that was asked. according to the constitution if you are born here you are a citizen and that is what was asked about. Why respond with a strawman argument??

You are good at providing responses but you really don't ever REALLY answer the question that was actually asked.

I believe the key here is the distinction between "Force of Argument" and "Force of Law". We all have the right to an opinion, one way or the other. We all have the right to persuade, one way or the other. To deny that or divert the argument is disingenuous.

Different States have different Rules that effect every aspect of your life. You actually have been living under them your whole life.

Currently, if you are born here, you are a Citizen, I believe that. I also believe that can be changed either through Legislation, which is under the Power of Congress to do, or Constitutional Amendment. Countries around the World are pretty divided on how They handle the issue. The bottom line here, as in all things, is what is the will of the Super Majority, by that I mean 75% of we the people. That is what it will always boil down to.

 

[drsmith1072]

my god....its impossible to have a civil discussion when there are so many hacks who ignore facts when proven beyond doubt (Difference between classical and modern liberalism, example) it is really really sad. Why choose fantasy over reality, you modern liberals?

i can't speak for anyone else, since it seems they're pretty much responding as you are (without me making judgments as to who started it)

but I can say, without question, that you ignored my comments and called liberals 'hacks'.

so much for civil debate???

ah well.. now you know why otherwise civil people lose patience. because your classical and modern liberalism thesis is simply silliness.

Don't you know, it's only wrong if the left makes generalizations about the right but there is nothing wrong with the right making generalizations about the left. LOL

Furthermore, that is what the right calls "reality." It is a creation of their own where they ignore facts that counter their predisposed opinions as they based every opinion they have on excerpts even as they ignore the whole.

Oh and before you righties go nuts I am not attacking the right for making generalizations but the fact that many of you seem so dead set against them even as your side makes them.

 

[Intense]

my god....its impossible to have a civil discussion when there are so many hacks who ignore facts when proven beyond doubt (Difference between classical and modern liberalism, example) it is really really sad. Why choose fantasy over reality, you modern liberals?

i can't speak for anyone else, since it seems they're pretty much responding as you are (without me making judgments as to who started it)

but I can say, without question, that you ignored my comments and called liberals 'hacks'.

so much for civil debate???

ah well.. now you know why otherwise civil people lose patience. because your classical and modern liberalism thesis is simply silliness.

Don't you know, it's only wrong if the left makes generalizations about the right but there is nothing wrong with the right making generalizations about the left. LOL

Furthermore, that is what the right calls "reality." It is a creation of their own where they ignore facts that counter their predisposed opinions as they based every opinion they have on excerpts even as they ignore the whole.

Oh and before you righties go nuts I am not attacking the right for making generalizations but the fact that many of you seem so dead set against them even as your side makes them.

Could you be more general???

 

[drsmith1072]

Even if the original post WAS accurate, so what? The amendment process makes it perfectly legal to AMEND the constitution legally. Amending the constitution does not mean you are against the constitution, it means you want to amend it to make it better...LEGALLY...unlike the democrats who would rather circumvent the process, lie to the people, and come up with bullshit statements when questioned about it in town halls.

I think the bigger question for you, rightwinger, is...

Why do you think the amendment process is bad? The same amendment process that freed slaves, established for women their right to vote, and gave Presidents term limits?

Why do you think the amendment process is bad?

what you would call "legally" and "better" is subjective and a matter of OPINION. BTW got any specfiics on that whole circumventing thing you keep spewing out??

No one is arguing against the amendement process so please drop the strawman BS. The primary point is that the tea party/ringwingers wrap themselves in teh anctity of the constitution claiming that only they can protect it from the evil democrats even as they wish to change what they claim they wish to protect. It reeks of hypocrisy. even you ahve to see that.

Your question's answer: Health Care "Law"
Also, you are wrong. Show me one tea party candidate's "issues" page in which they support what you claim. I'll wait.

Really?? got any SPECIFICS?? Why is it that you think you can just make a statement and that it's beyond question?? Furthermore, is that really ALL that you've got?? Really?? How sad is that? LOL

BTW what is it that you think I am claiming?? Furthermore HOW am i wrong?? You saying it doesn't make it so.

Oh and how does that address the fact that you continue to present your lame strawman argument that people are complaining about the amendment process when no one is?? Talk about choosing fantasy over reality. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

Speaking of spoon-fed delusion...

Thanks for trolling loser now let's see if you have anything valid to offer or are you here just to attack in the typical hit and run style of the lame and moronic right??

He presented a baseless OPINION and I called him out for it and all you can do is troll. GJ hack. LOL

A baseless opinion, huh?

Can you find where the right to privacy, the basis for Roe v. Wade, is enumerated in the Constitution?

Kthnxbai.

What does that have to do with what was said and if you have a point that applies to liberals as a whole, even as the right within this thread seems to be against the whole generalizations tactic, please do proceed. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

There is no contradiction. No one is under any obligation to defend against your stereotypes.

There IS a contradiction. It was shown in my post and IF you hadn;t edited my poost and removed 90% of it so you could avoid admitting and reposting that contradiction as you pretend it doesn't exist.

here is my full and complete post.

uh in case you missed it there has been evidence in this very thread that the right wishes to change at least some of what rightwinger listed.

one even tried to claim that



so they admit that they want to change it but they make lame excuses in a desperate attempt to justify their contradictions.

Try not to stumble over yourself as you run away from it's entire context this time.

Typical leftist: Make up shit and insist it's there.

There is no contradiction. Now stamp your feet and pout some more.

YES there is. The point of this thread was to show how the tea partiers want to change the constitution and since this thread began there have been several from the right who have argued against that premise. Then many righties shifted their argument in a CYA move to try and claim that they want to change it in "the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself." in a desperate attempt to change the subject with a strawman argument.

The contradiction is there and you sticking your fingers in your ears and scream lalalalalalalala won't make it go away.