Why Constitutional Interpretation is Dangerous to Liberty

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

Constitutional interpretation is dangerous to Liberty and will be our country's undoing if we are not careful.

I findit an insult to our Constitution and an act of high treason when someone interprets the Constitution. The Constitution is simple. In fact, it is so simple that there is no wiggle room. It says what it says; Nothing more, nothing less.Andthere shouldn't be any wiggle roomif the Constitution is strictly read... but the control freaks and those whose desire itis to dominate others and have power need the Constitution to give them that power and control. So, they get willing partners in their crime to all agree that the clauses, amendments and phrases in the Constitution need to be picked apart and analyzed and ultimately interpreted to accommodate something that clearly is not in the Constitution... but that they can now claim is a Constitutionally protected right.

I believe we have a majority in the political class who are traitors to the United States Constitution... I also believe we have a majority of Citizens who are ignorant of the Constitution and let the "Judges" and "Politicians" handle the "interpretation" of it. The Constitution was written for the common man and not in the legalese of the day... so those people who claim it must be interpreted want to bypass what the Constitution ACTUALLY saysand just make up what is Constitutional and what is not by individual interpretation.

It is my belief that every single person who tells you "well that's your interpretation, but the Supreme court has said otherwise" is in no small part, a big part of the problem and an unwitting traitor to their own Liberty and to the Constitution and should be considered dangerously ignorant.

If the Constitution was a living and breathing document meant to be interpreted to encompass all those things the founders could in no way have anticipated... like powered flight or battle tanks... then why have an Amendment process? Why make a way to change it?

Not to get too far off the subject, but the last time the Constitution was actually respected is when Congress passedthe 18th Amendment in order to make the sale and purchase of a drug (namely alcohol) illegal. Now, they just pass law after law banning the private sale or purchase or use of drugs with zero respect for the Constitution... and this is what will also happen to the 2nd Amendment if we are not careful. All rights are connected... don't forget that.

People think the Heller case is a win for us... it's just a temporary cork in the dike... the liberals and Statists know that they have so many regulations on the books that all they need to do is make more... and because they no longer need an Amendment to allow them to do these things... all bets are off in terms of a winning strategy when it comes to 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[Dr. Fresh]

imported post

Interpretation of the Constitution is the whole reason the SC exists. I think what you're complaining about is the "living document" concept, which is much different.

Even Originalists like Scalia interpret the Constitution. They just do it more correctly.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

Dr. Fresh wrote:

Interpretation of the Constitution is the whole reason the SC exists. I think what you're complaining about is the "living document" concept, which is much different.

Even Originalists like Scalia interpret the Constitution. They just do it more correctly.

This is a lie. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the SC the power to interpret a damn thing. Marshall was upset at how the Constitutional Convention went down, so he enacted his own coup detat through "judicial review." The Founders were furious at Marshall.

We'd be better off without the Supreme Court. The other branches should ignore it.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

Dr. Fresh wrote:

Interpretation of the Constitution is the whole reason the SC exists. I think what you're complaining about is the "living document" concept, which is much different.

Even Originalists like Scalia interpret the Constitution. They just do it more correctly.

Learn history and learn what the Judicial Branch was intended for... it was not to interpret the Constitution... they gave themselves that duty many years after the Constitution was ratified. Seriously, how can you even argue if you don't know the facts?

 

[45acpForMe]

imported post

Watch David Barton's American Heritage series. It talks more about the role of religion in government but does a good job on the constitution and the branches of government.

The Judicial branch was always intended to be the weakest branch of government. The Executive branch was the enforcer so there was a president that told the Supreme Court to "sit on it" because he wouldn't enforce what he thought to be an unconstitutional ruling. (I forget the details)

Judges on the Supreme Court areNOT appointed for life. The are appointedas long as they exhibit "good" behavior. So, many of the activist judges (supreme, appeals,etc) should be impeached for perverting the constitution. In the early days of government (early 1800s) a reason to impeach a judge included his private life. I believe one supreme court judge was impeached for being drunkin his personal life! Mind you not a "drunkard" but getting drunk once!

The looney bin is run by the crazies so I don't see them reigning in and obeying the constitution by themselves. Obama (and half of congress) should be impeached for exceeding their constitutional powers. A year or two ago, a bill was introduced that all freshman senators and congressman would be required to read the constitution. It failed. How in hell are they supposed to uphold and defend the constitution when they never read it? Oh I forgot, that is the same way they pass spending bills!!!

 

[smoking357]

imported post

45acpForMe wrote:

The Judicial branch was always intended to be the weakest branch of government. The Executive branch was the enforcer so there was a president that told the Supreme Court to "sit on it" because he wouldn't enforce what he thought to be an unconstitutional ruling. (I forget the details)

Andrew Jackson said of John Marshall "He has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it."

Since the SC does not have police or troops, it can be freely ignored. Until the 30's, the SC sat in the basement of the Capitol.

It was never intended to be an equal branch.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Constitutional interpretation is dangerous to Liberty and will be our country's undoing if we are not careful.

LOL

That's why we have SOCTUS justices and other lawyers and judgesthat spend a lifetime trying to understand this "simple" document.

The document is only "simple" when looked at with an agenda -you "simply" read it to mean what you want it to mean. When trying to look at it objectively and as it was intended, things get much less "simple" very quickly.

The problem with your small-minded, biased approach is that you don't seem to realize that not a statement has been uttered since speech has existed that isn't open to, and requiring, interpretation. Every statement, spoken or written, is interpreted by the person absorbing it. Put fifty people in a room and read them a single sentence. You'll have fifty different, slightly varied interpretations of that sentence. This holdstrue of all the senses. There is nothing "simple" in this world. If anything evercomesacross as"simple" to you, your head isn'tpulled far enoughout of your ass.

All-in-all, you're full of shit and your rant is worthless.



Let me ask you something, since you seem to know all about the constitution... have you ever studied it in an achedemic setting? What is your "simple" assertion based on? Where does your vast knowledge of the constitution come from? It sounds to me like you're the obese guy on the sidelines yelling the QB for sucking because "football is easy." Or the kid that's never been behind the wheel in his life saying racing looks easy. Everythingappears simple when you're ignorant of it.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Constitutional interpretation is dangerous to Liberty and will be our country's undoing if we are not careful.

LOL

That's why we have SOCTUS justices and other lawyers and judgesthat spend a lifetime trying to understand this "simple" document.

The document is only "simple" when looked at with an agenda -you "simply" read it to mean what you want it to mean. When trying to look at it objectively and as it was intended, things get much less "simple" very quickly.

The problem with your small-minded, biased approach is that you don't seem to realize that not a statement has been uttered since speech has existed that isn't open to, and requiring, interpretation. Every statement, spoken or written, is interpreted by the person absorbing it. Put fifty people in a room and read them a single sentence. You'll have fifty different, slightly varied interpretations of that sentence. This holdstrue of all the senses. There is nothing "simple" in this world. If anything evercomesacross as"simple" to you, your head isn'tpulled far enoughout of your ass.

All-in-all, you're full of @#$% and your rant is worthless.



Let me ask you something, since you seem to know all about the constitution... have you ever studied it in an achedemic setting? What is your "simple" assertion based on? Where does your vast knowledge of the constitution come from? It sounds to me like you're the obese guy on the sidelines yelling the QB for sucking because "football is easy." Or the kid that's never been behind the wheel in his life saying racing looks easy. Everythingappears simple when you're ignorant of it.

Oh, come off it, friend. You know as well as I that the document is plain. It takes years of practiced mendacity to find it occluded and to issue "opinions" clearing its murkiness.

In Constitutional Law, we spent almost no time reading the Constitution. 99.99999% of class time was spent reading caselaw. The judges don't measure their "opinions" against the Constitution, but against other SC "opinions," effectively replacing the real Constitution with a bench-made revision.

The Judicial Branch is a running coup.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

Oh, come off it, friend. You know as well as I that the document is plain. It takes years of practiced mendacity to find it occluded and to issue "opinions" clearing its murkiness.

In Constitutional Law, we spent almost no time reading the Constitution. 99.99999% of class time was spent reading caselaw. The judges don't measure their "opinions" against the Constitution, but against other SC "opinions," effectively replacing the real Constitution with a bench-made revision.

The Judicial Branch is a running coup.

You realize why they do that, right? Because if you go far enough down the line, the direct call to the constitution is there and it sets precedence. The original interperation is made and all others follow it. If every case reverted back to the justice's own interpretation of the constitution there'd be no consistency to the rulings and we'd have mass contradiction and chaos. And why would we have that? Because it's NOT that simple.

It's the justice department that's the least constitution crushing of them all. The other two branches are the ones running amok. If there's anything to complain about in the direction of the justice department, it's the fact that they aren't out actively striking down unconstitutional laws and reigning in the two wild horses that are trampling the document to death.



This has been brought up before, when the courts rule in favor of the extreme-right then all is good. When the court's ruling is not in favor of the extreme-right, then suddenly the judges are "activists" and killing the constitution. Give me a break.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

You realize why they do that, right? Because if you go far enough down the line, the direct call to the constitution is there and it sets precedence.

And where did the Framers ever give them permission to do that? The Constitution is all the "precedent" they need.

The original interperation is made and all others follow it. If every case reverted back to the justice's own interpretation of the constitution there'd be no consistency to the rulings and we'd have mass contradiction and chaos. And why would we have that? Because it's NOT that simple.

It is simple, and that is exactly the methodology they should employ. Stare decisis is an intellectual cop-out and a tremendous non sequitur. Stare decisis has the People being bound to a new Constitution that no delegate submitted and that no state ratified. Stare decisis is profoundly unconstitutional.

It's the justice department that's the least constitution crushing of them all. The other two branches are the ones running amok. If there's anything to complain about in the direction of the justice department, it's the fact that they aren't out actively striking down unconstitutional laws and reigning in the two wild horses that are trampling the document to death.

The Justice Department is not the same as the Judicial Branch. As to the rest of this passage, the SC was never established to be the savior of the Constitution. The People are.

This has been brought up before, when the courts rule in favor of the extreme-right then all is good. When the court's ruling is not in favor of the extreme-right, then suddenly the judges are "activists" and killing the constitution. Give me a break.

Red herring.

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

And where did the Framers ever give them permission to do that? The Constitution is all the "precedent" they need.

Whatever is not expressly forbidden is allowed. SCOTUS was not forbidden to rule on Constitutional matters, nor did Congress or the several states correct that when SCOTUS started the practice, which is a de facto acceptance of it.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

You realize why they do that, right? Because if you go far enough down the line, the direct call to the constitution is there and it sets precedence.

And where did the Framers ever give them permission to do that? The Constitution is all the "precedent" they need.

And it's all they got when decided the issue the first time. Now all following decisionshonor that originalinterpretation.



The SC was established to determine whether laws are constitutional or not. That makesit the savior of the constitution and the one that places the limits on the other two.

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

Shhh.... you are talking common sense. The moonbats will be upset with you AWD... Next they will accuse you of being a liberal statist, or a plant from the left.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

You realize why they do that, right? Because if you go far enough down the line, the direct call to the constitution is there and it sets precedence.

And where did the Framers ever give them permission to do that? The Constitution is all the "precedent" they need.

And it's all they got when decided the issue the first time. Now all following decisionshonor that originalinterpretation.

No. This is incorrect. Marshall was the third Chief Justice. The first three engaged in no such nonsense. "Judicial review" did not come into being until Marbury vs. Madison, 1803, 14 years after the SC was established.

The SC was established to determine whether laws are constitutional or not.

As has been abundantly explained, this is an outright lie. It was given no such powers, nor did anyone anticipate that such treason would be attempted by this branch.

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

Ok, Article III section 1, US Constition.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section II
[font="Arial,Helvetica"][size="-1"] The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to[/size][/font] [font="Arial,Helvetica"][size="-1"]Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States; --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. [/size][/font]
So... we see that the judicial power of the United States is through one supreme Court, and that court may rule on all cases arising under the Constitution. So does it not stand to reason that they have to be able to rule on the constitutionality of laws? Keep in mind, there is nothing FORBIDDING SCOTUS from ruling on constitutional issues.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

Ok, Article III section 1, US Constition.

Don't overlook that Article III is rather short. Some consider that it was incomplete, perhapsdeliberately so,and that the Judiciary Act of 1789 wasin essencean amendment that didn't get ratified by the states.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

[font="Arial,Helvetica"][size="-1"][/size][/font]So... we see that the judicial power of the United States is through one supreme Court, and that court may rule on all cases arising under the Constitution. So does it not stand to reason that they have to be able to rule on the constitutionality of laws?

Where does it say that? If such an important power, a power that effects a complete change in the balance of powers held by each branch, was not made explicit in the Constitution, then it must not have been presumed to have been granted. If this power would have been conferred, it should have been deliberated and tendered in an amendment process, not in a self-benefitting power grab.

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

Did you not read what I posted at all from the Constitution? SCOTUS has the power to rule on all laws arising under the Constitution. Furthermore, they were not prohibited from making such rulings, nor did Congress or the states act to remove that power from them.

How do you propose to rule on a law under the Constitution, without first being able to determine it's constitutionality?

 

[45acpForMe]

imported post

You all are getting a little heated.

Basically the SCOTUS was to rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by congress. Since there were no precidents (other than common law etc) before the constitution, the SCOTUS would use the founders commentary, diaries, constitutional convention writings to understand what the intention of the constitution were. So they were able to make decisions based on the "original intent" of the document. Each case being researched and investigated was then used as precident through time as expected.

The problem with activist judges is that they rule "without" precident and ignoring the original interpretation of the founders. That is how a Christian nation that funded missionaries to the indians, had church service in the capital and other DC buildings, etc was overnight turned on its head when they took Thomas Jeffersons quote from a "private letter"out of context to say their should be a separation of church and state. The founders themselves funded a chaplain for the congress and issued national days of prayer/fasting, and had Christian phrases carved inbuildingsso I think their intentions are now being trampled all over.

The same can be written about finding the right to abortion somewhere in the constitution. Other abuses like income tax is unconstitutional but made somewhat constitutional by the 16th ammendment. The intent for taxes were that only imports were taxed but the war debts needed addressing.

So all activist judges by their very action are guilty of NOT defending the constitution and should be impeached.

When you allow judges and congress to go extra-constitutional it is dangerous and can quickly redefine anything.Look at the Heller case with a 5-4 ruling. We were one vote away from losing our rights as civilians to own guns. Way to go Americaelecting a liberal president waiting to stack the courts with liberal activist judges.

One last thing, once a court makes an bad-unconstitutionalruling, it becomes a useable precident. So one break from the constitution can swerve the whole country from that point on away from the true intention.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

And where did the Framers ever give them permission to do that? The Constitution is all the "precedent" they need.

Whatever is not expressly forbidden is allowed. SCOTUS was not forbidden to rule on Constitutional matters, nor did Congress or the several states correct that when SCOTUS started the practice, which is a de facto acceptance of it.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

But this must not mean much to you... I mean... the way you make such claims shows either contempt or ignorance of the Constitution... and I don't believe you to be ignorant.

Whatever is not expressly forbidden is not allowed... any power not given to any branch of the Federal government... and this includes the Supreme Court... is left to the States, and the People. The SCOTUS was not given permission... so it does not have permission. It's quite simple really. The concept was a very good one... if we don't say you (any branch of the Federal Government) can do it... you cannot do it. What part of that escapes your understanding? The Constitution specificallyinstructs the SCOTUS "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;" Nowhere in there is the right to "interpret" the Constitution given. Courts do not write laws... and case-law is in itself Unconstitutional.

The Constitution is simply written... and easily understandable. No means no, "shall not infringe" means "shall not infringe" and the 9th and 10th Amendments say that the Federal government (this includes Congress, the Office of President and Vice President and the Judicial Branch) cannot make any laws beyond what permissions are GIVEN them in the Constitution...That any powers outside those enumerated in the Constitutionare the exclusive right of the States and you and me individually.

Like I said in my original posting... anyone who says differently has only one motive... control of their neighbor... or for some, quite possibly, a little bit of schadenfreude.But mostly, they want to obfuscate the simplicity that is our Constitution and purposely make it opaque and mysterious and something that only Judicial scholars can read and interpret in order to make it say anything they want, and usually what they want is more control and power. Basically, the Federal government and the SCOTUS have been bypassing the Constitution... therefore committing treason... for nearly the entire life of our Country.If we are to survive as a Republic... we must restore respect for the Constitution and reign in the POTUS, Congress and the SCOTUS or we will lose our country and our freedom to a bunch of authoritarians.

Sad that all you have is some simple statement that cannot even be backed up Constitutionally... or Ad Hominem attacks.