Why Constitutional Interpretation is Dangerous to Liberty

[R a Z o R]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

sv_libertarian wrote:

But hey, if it suits yourWET DREAMof 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 theTURNER DIARIEShad a section on SCOTUS.

And also, since you are a RABID RIGHT WING MOONBATwho cannot fathom a worldview outside ofWHAT RUSHtells you, please quit telling me what my political beliefs should be.

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.

+1


Bravo , Washintonian_For_Liberty .

This type of anemotional attack needs to be addressed at every opprotunity .

Thank you for your time and talent .

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

Translated: "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala..."

Nice cop-out. Submission accepted.

 

[SlackwareRobert]

imported post

The whole problem in a nutshell is these judges think it is their job to rewrite
the law so it is constitutional.
Actually heard a senator yesterday claim that judges who strike down
a law they pass as unconstitutional is practicing "right wing activism" from the bench.

If a law is unconstitutional, i.e. Mass. Marriage law. Then strike it down, and
let the legislature rewrite it. Not only did they find a new right, but it was
postdated as well in the fine print to take effect in 200 years.

I wouldn't have minded the removal of our state SC judge if they had ruled
based on the law.
1. The state law that authorizes him to decorate the court house was
unconstitutional.
2. He wasn't the Chief justice, so law doesn't apply.
3. Possession of the 10 commandments is a crime.

Any of these arguments would have been legal grounds, unfortunately
none of them can hold water. So they make up the law as they go to
get the result they want.

Just look at property rights, tax revenue is now OK as a reason for theft,
the SCOTUS ignores the fact that raising property tax across the board
would also raise revenue without needing to steal property.
Which was reserved only if there is a need that can't be done another way.

The big question is why don't the lawyers ever bring up the obvious in these cases.
Could it be they are all setups to let the crooks grab more power under color of law?

I want to know why if we are all equal under the law, that the politicos get
their cases heard before the SCOTUS all the time, and the rest of us have more
chance of hitting the lottery, than getting a hearing.
How many times did Clinton get to appear before them on a personal matter.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

Translated: "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala..."

Nice cop-out. Submission accepted.

If you're running away, I can't force you to fight. All I can do is call attention to the profound deception in your argument.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Flyer22 wrote:

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?

That's simple, just ask washington for liberty and smoking357. They have all the answers, no interpretation necessary.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Then who interprets the constitution and determines the constitutionality of laws?

The 10th Amendment:

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.

___________________________________________________________________

What about that is so hard to understand? Congress has no right to make laws other than what are enumerated to them in the Constitution and those are;

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 Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

____________________________________________________________________

It is clear that any law falling outside Article I, Section 8 are unconstitutional. The abuses that politicians have heaped upon the people because of "interpretation" have been many. The 'General Welfare' clause has been used to justify almost any type of nanny State laws and regulations while the 'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts ' clause has been used to support many of the gigantic bureaucracies that suck huge amounts of money from the American people, while they conveniently ignore the second part of the sentence that says ' by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.' When you ignore what something says and take out of context any part of any speech, you can many any paper, book or person say almost anything.

Words have specific meanings... there were no ambiguities or vagariesin the Constitution. The lack of specific rules for everything was by design. It was to be left to the people to decide, not a central government and the 10th Amendment makes that abundantly clear.

The idea of taking clauses and making them as powerful as a full sentence is the vehicle of the tyrant and authoritarian. They use the vagueness of a clause (where the full sentence is clear) to give themselves the right to interpret. This is treasonous and worthy only of a traitors fate. These people use these purposeful splitting up of sentences to further their own twisted authoritarian views.

If you side with them... you are one of them and you are not what you claim to be. No Libertarian would ever agree to the abuses that the authoritarians are committing with their improper reading of the Constitution.

When I say Improper... I mean when you take one clause in a sentence... and make it independent of the rest of the sentence... you bastardize the language and you take and discard all agreed upon meaning for your own gain. The promotion of science and the useful arts is a perfect example... they have taken this clause independent of the remaining sentence and have used it to build huge bloated bureaucracies that they can funnel pork and special favors through. These people are traitors to Liberty, they are traitors to freedom and they will be the reason for the total collapse of this country.

One final addition. The Amendment process was put in place in order to clear up any laws that future generations felt needed to be "Amended" or "Added" to the Constitution. This was the ONLY way that Congress was to be allowed to make any laws that affected our Liberty... but now, 99% of laws Congress makes affect our Liberty and they are extra-constitutional. They have no power except the guns the Congress commands and control over the idiots who wield those guns.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

When you ignore what something says and take out of context any part of any speech, you can many any paper, book or person say almost anything.

That's the agenda behind "interpretation." Don't like the Constitution? No problem. Interpret a new one.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Then who interprets the constitution and determines the constitutionality of laws?

The 10th Amendment:

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.

___________________________________________________________________

What about that is so hard to understand? Congress has no right to make laws other than what are enumerated to them in the Constitution and those are;

Duh! Ugh, stoopid me. I should have know it was so simple!! :banghead:



Ok, wise guy, now who decides if the laws begin made are within those bounds or not?

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

When you ignore what something says and take out of context any part of any speech, you can many any paper, book or person say almost anything.

That's the agenda behind "interpretation." Don't like the Constitution? No problem. Interpret a new one.

It's also a strawman and not what interpretation means. What he described isdistortion, fabrication, and twisting. It is NOT interpretation.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

When you ignore what something says and take out of context any part of any speech, you can many any paper, book or person say almost anything.

That's the agenda behind "interpretation." Don't like the Constitution? No problem. Interpret a new one.

It's also a strawman and not what interpretation means. What he described isdistortion, fabrication, and twisting. It is NOT interpretation.

That's exactly what interpretation is. You're such a hypocrite. You bemoan the lack of fixed meanings in our constitution, yet you posit no fixed metes and bounds defining just what "interpretation" is.

 

[R a Z o R]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

It's also a strawman and not what interpretation means. What he described isdistortion, fabrication, and twisting. It is NOT interpretation.

The :distortion , fabrication , and twisting of the interpretationinorder to supportthe criminal left wing extremist's agenda is the curruption of our Constitution .

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

That's exactly what interpretation is. You're such a hypocrite. You bemoan the lack of fixed meanings in our constitution, yet you posit no fixed metes and bounds defining just what "interpretation" is.

lollerskates and roflcopter are having a get together, you're invited

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

R a Z o R wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

It's also a strawman and not what interpretation means. What he described isdistortion, fabrication, and twisting. It is NOT interpretation.

The :distortion , fabrication , and twisting of the interpretationinorder to supportthe criminal left wing extremist's agenda is the curruption of our Constitution .

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: Oh this guy...

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Ok, wise guy, now who decides if the laws begin made are within those bounds or not?

Maybe you should sue whatever schools you went to, because they screwed you on your education.

How hard is it to understand the words "Congress shall make no law..." or "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States."? How hard is it tounderstand thatwhen Congress makes a law that does not fall under the strict wordingin Article I, Section 8, that those laws are illegal and illegitimate?

For too long, we have allowed people to complicate that which is very simple so they canuse their new found 'powers' to control people and enrich themselves. The longer 'We the People' allow this to continue, the more difficult it will be to reign it back in. In fact, we're approaching a point at which the only way to shake off the authoritarians from their places of power will be through armed conflict. I hate the idea that this will be our only recourse, but people like you and SV_Lib with your tacit approval of their authoritarian ways are making the chance that armed conflict within the United States breaking out more of a reality every day. As they usurp more powers and liberties from the private sector, you either protect them... or you ignorantly claim the Constitution somehow gives them these rights. These claims could not be further from the truth, yet without really thinking about it... you accept the status quo and argue in favor of bigger and more intrusive government.

I've asked this before and I'll ask it again: Why are you here? I mean, you obviously don't care about Liberty or Freedom. Why would you care about the right of the people to keep and bear arms? The Constitution clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shallnot be infringed, yet Congress, the States and even counties, cities and towns are continuously infringing on this right. The Constitution is very clear, but in order to rule over people, you must make it obscure... so they invent the obfuscation by claiming the Constitution must be "interpreted". It seems you feel this is the correct way... why not just say it? Why not just admit you don't care for Liberty of anyone but yourself... so as long as you think others are getting screwed... and you think they might deserve it? You obviouslyseem happy with the unconstitutionality of it all.

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

I've asked this before and I'll ask it again: Why are you here? I mean, you obviously don't care about Liberty or Freedom. Why would you care about the right of the people to keep and bear arms? The Constitution clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shallnot be infringed, yet Congress, the States and even counties, cities and towns are continuously infringing on this right. The Constitution is very clear, but in order to rule over people, you must make it obscure... so they invent the obfuscation by claiming the Constitution must be "interpreted". It seems you feel this is the correct way... why not just say it? Why not just admit you don't care for Liberty of anyone but yourself... so as long as you think others are getting screwed... and you think they might deserve it? You obviouslyseem happy with the unconstitutionality of it all.

What you really mean to say is that you expect everyone to think exactly how you do, or you conveniently declare them to have no valid opinion, and thus an enemy.

Let me ask you one simple thing. Say Congress passes an unconstituional law, or a lesser government does, and attempts to enforce it, without a SCOTUS to rule otherwise, how do you expect to get it overturned by the courts? Or does your fantasy world demand everyone simply take up arms and overthrow the government?

I fail to see why you are here. You seem more interested in armed confrontation with government, or simply finding fault with anything that comes from government. Do you have a problem with authority figures? Were you abused or ignored as a child?

Your notion of "liberty" or "freedom" has more to do with "me me me me" than actual freedom and liberty.

The peculiar notion that no court can determine if a law is constitutional, or interpret what the constitution says has no real meaning in historical jurisprudence or law, and is focused on what seems to be your desperate desire to object to anything done by the government.

In the guise of "liberty" and "freedom" you demand all see things your way, which in fact is the opposite of liberty and freedom. You read law and constitution through your warped blinders which ensures that your own interpretation is the only suitable one, and any who disagree with you become your class enemies. That is fascism. By creating class enemies who oppose your flavor of "liberty" and "freedom" you then become no better than the Mussolinis or Stalins of the world who sought to impose their own twisted aims on society through similar means.

Your world has no true liberty or freedom, because in your world, only the strongman has the means to hold "freedom". Your constant thirst for conflict with government, and subtle hints of armed rebellion or resistance suggest a bloodlust and desire for violent revolution. You are no patriot, but rather a rabble rouser and common thug.

You sir are revolting and an odious presence in a community where people actually do believe in rule of law, liberty and freedom. You cower behind a weapon, and twisted words, and take company with others of your ilk. I will have nothing to do with you, or your twisted "liberty" because in your world, there is neither liberty, nor freedom.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Ok, wise guy, now who decides if the laws begin made are within those bounds or not?

Maybe you should sue whatever schools you went to, because they screwed you on your education.

How hard is it to understand the words "Congress shall make no law..." or "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States."? How hard is it tounderstand thatwhen Congress makes a law that does not fall under the strict wordingin Article I, Section 8, that those laws are illegal and illegitimate?

The rest of your post is a worthless,Sean Hannity, "why do you hate America!!?!??!?!?!?!"rant, soI left it out.



You still haven't answered my quesiton. Who decides when the law doesn't fit the standard? I didn't ask you how hard it was to understand. I asked you a simple question, who decides?

 

[PT111]

imported post

I will say that this is about the most educational thread I have ever read on this or any other Internet board.

 

[PT111]

imported post

Double tap.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

Your world has no true liberty or freedom, because in your world, only the strongman has the means to hold "freedom". Your constant thirst for conflict with government, and subtle hints of armed rebellion or resistance suggest a bloodlust and desire for violent revolution. You are no patriot, but rather a rabble rouser and common thug.

This is what it all keeps boiling down to with these anarchical, "zomg I hate all government" people. I keep asking the question, in this and other threads, who decides, who resolves disputes, etc etc? And what it keeps coming down to is... shoot it out. The constitution issupposedly so overwhelmingly obvious, yet people disagree on it. Who decides? Shoot it out. Last man standing is the one that's right.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

I will say that this is about the most educational thread I have ever read on this or any other Internet board.

Please, sir, your sarcasm soils the mood.



...at least I hope you're being sarcasitic.