• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Why Constitutional Interpretation is Dangerous to Liberty

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:
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. (1) So does it not stand to reason that they have to be able to rule on the constitutionality of laws? (2) Keep in mind, there is nothing FORBIDDING SCOTUS from ruling on constitutional issues.

(1) It does not stand to reason... sorry...it does not say they can read into the Constitution words, phrases or meanings that are not there. The wording of the Constitution is quite simple. They are not to go beyond those boundaries.

(2) Ninth but mostly Tenth Amendment which says if it isn't in the Constitution... the Federal Government (includes the Courts) cannot do it. If the constitution seems vague in some areas.... use the Amendment process as enumerated in Article V to clarify much as they did in the 14th Amendment and the 21st Amendment. At times, our government actually respected our Republic... but most of the times, they've resorted to becoming authoritarians.

The SCOTUS is no different. Self important pompous blowhards who have usurped the Congress's rolein making national laws and by national laws, I mean Constitutional Amendments. There is a reason that it was supposed to be hard to make laws.... because if it was easy (like it is now), the government would spiral out of control and rob us of our Freedom and Liberty much like it is doing now. Yet you argue in protection of this bastardization of our Constitution... strikes me as odd considering your moniker.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

45acpForMe wrote:
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.


^This. You lost me on the religion part, but this much we can agree on.
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

And where do you find that the states reserved this power, when a clear reading of Article III show that SCOTUS has the power to rule on laws written under the constitution, as well as interstate disputes, and a host of other issues? What do you think "written under the constitution" means?

But hey, if it suits your wet dream of forcing people into a worldview of the constitution that doesn't exist anywhere, and demeaning anyone who doesn't take your extremist view, go for it. Didn't know the Turner Diaries had a section on SCOTUS.

And also, since you are a rabid right wing moonbat who cannot fathom a worldview outside of what Rush tells you, please quit telling me what my political beliefs should be. Not only do you have no concept of what the constitution says, you have no concept of what a libertarian is either.
 

N00blet45

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
475
Location
Walton County, Georgia, ,
imported post

[font="Arial,Helvetica"][size="-1"]
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...

I believe that's what you're referring to. As I read it that means the Supreme Court has the power to rule on laws and issues under the Constitution. That would mean that a law would have to be constitutional (how can it be under the constitution if it isn't constitutional?) in the first place. If the law was unconstitutional it shouldn't have been followed at all and thus not brought before the court.

The court would have a de facto power to rule if a law was unconstitutional simply by the fact that if they say they can't rule on the case because it isn't under the Constitution then that would be exercising that power.
[/size][/font]
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:
And where do you find that the states reserved this power, when a clear reading of Article III show that SCOTUS has the power to rule on laws written under the constitution, as well as interstate disputes, and a host of other issues? What do you think "written under the constitution" means?

But hey, if it suits your wet dream of forcing people into a worldview of the constitution that doesn't exist anywhere, and demeaning anyone who doesn't take your extremist view, go for it. Didn't know the Turner Diaries had a section on SCOTUS.

And also, since you are a rabid right wing moonbat who cannot fathom a worldview outside of what Rush tells you, please quit telling me what my political beliefs should be. Not only do you have no concept of what the constitution says, you have no concept of what a libertarian is either.



This guy is great. :D
 

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:
And where do you find that the states reserved this power, when a clear reading of Article III show that SCOTUS has the power to rule on laws written under the constitution, as well as interstate disputes, and a host of other issues? What do you think "written under the constitution" means?

But hey, if it suits your wet dream of forcing people into a worldview of the constitution that doesn't exist anywhere, and demeaning anyone who doesn't take your extremist view, go for it. Didn't know the Turner Diaries had a section on SCOTUS.

And also, since you are a rabid right wing moonbat who cannot fathom a worldview outside of what Rush tells you, please quit telling me what my political beliefs should be. Not only do you have no concept of what the constitution says, you have no concept of what a libertarian is either.
Since youcannot seem to arguewithout Ad Hominem attacks, you only provehow little substance there is to your positionand consequently provide anyone who would like to have a polite debate a poor opponent. Personal attacks in an argument shows how small a person you actually are. Grow up.
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

No, I've given you the most basic and fundamental aspects of why SCOTUS does what it does. You fell back to bitching and moaning that I disrespect the constitution and must not be a libertarian. So of course I responded in kind. You're type can never take the heat though, much like liberal moonbats in that regard.

If SCOTUS could not interpret the constitution, congress could run roughshod over our civil liberties.

If SCOTUS could not rule on if a law was constitutional or not, any law could be shoved down our throats, any cop could do as they please, and any government agency could act without any judicial checks.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:
If SCOTUS could not interpret the constitution, congress could run roughshod over our civil liberties.

If SCOTUS could not rule on if a law was constitutional or not, any law could be shoved down our throats, any cop could do as they please, and any government agency could act without any judicial checks.



I'd love to see him address these issues. This is going to be classic.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:
And where do you find that the states reserved this power, when a clear reading of Article III show that SCOTUS has the power to rule on laws written under the constitution, as well as interstate disputes, and a host of other issues? What do you think "written under the constitution" means?

But hey, if it suits your wet dream of forcing people into a worldview of the constitution that doesn't exist anywhere, and demeaning anyone who doesn't take your extremist view, go for it. Didn't know the Turner Diaries had a section on SCOTUS.

And also, since you are a rabid right wing moonbat who cannot fathom a worldview outside of what Rush tells you, please quit telling me what my political beliefs should be. Not only do you have no concept of what the constitution says, you have no concept of what a libertarian is either.
If your only purpose is to make sophomoric fallacies of ad hominem and begging-the-question, you should go somewhere else. Libertarian? I rather took you for Harry Blackmun.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:
No, I've given you the most basic and fundamental aspects of why SCOTUS does what it does. You fell back to bitching and moaning that I disrespect the constitution and must not be a libertarian. So of course I responded in kind. You're type can never take the heat though, much like liberal moonbats in that regard.
Just like the hard-Left whack-jobs, your arguments are shallow and stupid. You don't know enough about Law or Logic to formulate a basic argument that avoids the trap of circular reasoning, and you have no desire to learn, as you're so consumed by your ignorant ideas.

If SCOTUS could not interpret the constitution, congress could run roughshod over our civil liberties.
If SCOTUS can interpret the Constitution, SCOTUS can run roughshod over our liberties. Jefferson well understood this. It's a pity you lack his Americanism.

If SCOTUS could not rule on if a law was constitutional or not, any law could be shoved down our throats, any cop could do as they please, and any government agency could act without any judicial checks.
Right back at ya'.

If SCOTUS can rule on whether a law was constitutional, or not, any law could be shoved down our throats; any cop could do as they please, and any government agency could act without any Congressional checks.

You posit an anti-American unaccountable oligarchy, and I reject you and your tyrannical ideas.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
If SCOTUS can interpret the Constitution, SCOTUS can run roughshod over our liberties. Jefferson well understood this. It's a pity you lack his Americanism.

Talk about circular reasoning. Then who interprets the constitution and determines the constitutionality of laws?


The SOCTUS was designed as the last check in the system. The founders set up a system of rule by the elite to save the people from themselves (I don't agree with this, just look at where it's got us). The SOCTUS is the highest of the elite and they're given the last word on the constitution.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
who interprets the constitution and determines the constitutionality of laws?
Fella', that is one of the most whopping circular arguments I've yet seen.

You might as well ask who, in absence of the Domestic Security Service, does our nightly home inspections?

You're wrong, evilly so, and this evil idea has done much to destroy America. We now have no faith in the laws; we believe law to exist only when a court tells us we have law. We are no longer our own masters.
"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212
"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114



Love of the Supreme Court is merely a hidden desire to control others. I urge you quit it.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
who interprets the constitution and determines the constitutionality of laws?
Love of the Supreme Court is merely a hidden desire to control others. I urge you quit it.



You've proved that Jefferson disliked the judicial branch (well known fact), nothing more. You have not, however, answered my question.



A new law is passed. All guns are banned. Who declares that law unconstitutional and strikes it down, if not the courts?

That's a very black and white case, let's see if you can even answer that one.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

A new law is passed by the courts. All abortions are permitted. Who declares that law unconstitutional and strikes it down, if not the legislature?

This is a simple question. Let's see if you can answer it.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
A new law is passed by the courts. All abortions are permitted. Who declares that law unconstitutional and strikes it down, if not the legislature?

This is a simple question. Let's see if you can answer it.
It is quite simple. The courts passed no such "law." They ruled it none of the state's business what medical decisions a woman makes. The court doesn't pass laws, it interprets them and it make decisions in matters in accordance with existing laws and the constitution.


Now it's your turn to answer my question.
 

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:
If SCOTUS could not rule on if a law was constitutional or not, any law could be shoved down our throats, any cop could do as they please, and any government agency could act without any judicial checks.

Umm, that is kinda what is happening now and in the last 50 years,

Occasionallya bogus lawgets challenged, but only when a person with enough wealth opens their wallet to pay for that challenge. The constitution is to protect the common people of this country along with the elite. But only the elite can afford to challenge a law that is unconstitutional.

Someone had already mentioned the notes, diaries, and letters from our founding fathers that go into much more detail about each section of our constitution and our bill of rights, it is very clear to determine the meaning of each section when you read the notes that go with it that were penned by the authors of it. Look at a typical state statute book, they had room to list all the why& hows under each statute and definitions of each word. That space was not available in a single document that is our constitution, so notes and letters are the only way to decipher their writings for true meanings.
Thomas Jefferson is very clear in his diaries and letters that private firearm ownership is protected.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
A new law is passed by the courts. All abortions are permitted. Who declares that law unconstitutional and strikes it down, if not the legislature?

This is a simple question. Let's see if you can answer it.
It is quite simple. The courts passed no such "law."
You can't simply play "didn't happen." If you're going to engage in a discussion, you have to at least agree to be honest about the realities of the world.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
A new law is passed by the courts. All abortions are permitted. Who declares that law unconstitutional and strikes it down, if not the legislature?

This is a simple question. Let's see if you can answer it.
It is quite simple. The courts passed no such "law."
You can't simply play "didn't happen." If you're going to engage in a discussion, you have to at least agree to be honest about the realities of the world.

I could, and should, say the same to you. You want to argue on the basis of a false statement. I corrected you. Now you're telling me because I won't accept your false statement that I'm being dishonest.

Either you're going to answer my question or not. Cut to the chase and spare me the crap.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
A new law is passed by the courts. All abortions are permitted. Who declares that law unconstitutional and strikes it down, if not the legislature?

This is a simple question. Let's see if you can answer it.
It is quite simple. The courts passed no such "law."
You can't simply play "didn't happen." If you're going to engage in a discussion, you have to at least agree to be honest about the realities of the world.

I could, and should, say the same to you. You want to argue on the basis of a false statement.
Translated: "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala..."
 

Flyer22

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
374
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
imported post

For those who think that the Constitution is so simple--MOST of it is simple, but a few things are not.

Take the doctrine of Implied Powers. At the time of the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson and some others believed that it was unconstitutional, because the Constitution does not explicitly give the government the right to purchase land. See this source, among many.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h476.html

However, all other governments on earth have the power to buy and sell land. Should we put ourselves at a disadvantage versus all other governments, just because the Founders didn't bother to address that point?


Now--the infamouse "general welfare" clause--Article I, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . . ."

We all know that the Founders did not mean "welfare" in the sense of the current government programs--but what does it mean? I wish that somebody would define that term--without "interpreting" the Constitution--so that everybody else can understand this oh-so-simple document.


Another example--Section 9:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Who, pray tell, decides when the public safety may require a suspension? The Constitution doesn't say! And who decides who the decider is, and how do they do it?
 
Top