Why Constitutional Interpretation is Dangerous to Liberty

[marshaul]

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.

I've received this treatment from Washingtonian on countless occasions. It's basically his M.O.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

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.

I could care less what you think... save for the times that your thinking is turned into action which takes awayeveryone's rights, and Liberty and enslaves us... then we have a problem.

sv_libertarian wrote:

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?

You are now trolling. Your clearly not looking for an answer to your question, but rather you're trying to marginalize me by saying my beliefs are fantasy.

sv_libertarian wrote:

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?

The question I posed to AWD must have really hit a nerve with you... afraid of hiding behind your lie of a moniker? I do have a problem with "authority figures" in the sheer fact that we were meant to be a peer based society where we elect "representatives" and not "leaders". You seem to hold to the belief that people need to be ruled or lorded over. I believe people generally are capable of taking care of themselves and that if our government was properly run, and the courts acted as they were intended, we would have a fairly well running system. But instead, we get chumps like you voting for the current chumps in office and then you both come after people like me for criticizing the fact that authoritarians have taken over and are slowly leeching away any semblance of freedom we once possessed.

Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty, and we as a people have dropped the ball. But enablers like yourself do nearly as much damage as those who continue to ignore the Constitution.

individual's right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness meaning that it isaman’s right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The idea's the founders put forth on individual rights are many and clearly stated.

sv_libertarian wrote:

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.

As should any good citizen. Big government should never be trusted as time and time again, it has proved to be harmful to its citizens. If you were a Libertarian, which I think I have now exposed that you are not, you would know this and you would be as horrified at what they are doing in most State Capitols as well as in DC.


sv_libertarian wrote:

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.

[/quote]This last part is just sad really. You really are ignorant of our Constitution and the desires of the founders at the time of the framing and why the powers delegated were delegated the way they were... and why so many limits were placed on government.

I have no desire for violent revolution as if one were to happen, many peoplewould die including those I hold dear. Violent revolution is the last thing I would want to see happen, yet it is going to happen if we continue to mortgage our future and basically make us and our children slaves to our creditors. As the economy continues to shrink, and more people lose jobs, the spending of money will slow to such a rate that the taxes collected will only cover the interest on our country's debt... California is handing out IOUs instead of paychecks... what happens when the Federal Government is forced to do that?

Calling me a thug only adds further proof that you cannot form a decent argument or debate in a rational and polite manner. While I may slip at times due to the caustic nature of my debate opponent, I at least give you some respect which is something you have yet to do with me.

My claims that the purposeful obfuscation and muddying of the Constitutional waters is a treasonous act have not been refuted by you... because instead of trying to have a debate, you attack ME personally trying to discredit what I say by discrediting me. That is a logical fallacy and you need to come up with a better argument. For example, if I just said "You are ignorant" and left it at that... it would be a bad argument as I did not qualify my statement that you are ignorant. However, if you read what I say about your ignorance, you can see that I qualify your ignorance rather than just name call. While you and others may disagree with my finding, at least I'm not posing a logical fallacy as my argument.

 

[Flyer22]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

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.

You keep talking about what is not meant by those abused clauses. When are you going to tell us what is meant? Or are you going to just keep taking things away until there's nothing left for those clauses to cover?

In addition, you don't seem to understand the difference between general rules and specific rules. General rules MUST have a measureofvagueness and ambiguity, in order to cover as many specific situations as possible. Specific rules are extremely precise, and cover very few situations.

My county has something called the Land Development Code. It specifies how and where things can bebuilt, such as how far a building must be from the property line, and how much of a lot can be covered by structures, etc. It is VERY specific. Itgoes into great detail, and definesmany, manywords. It's also about the size of two Tom Clancy novels. And that is just for one aspect of life in one county!

The nature of human language dictates that when a document as short as the Constitution, covering the governance of a whole nation, is written, parts of it MUST be at least a little bit ambiguous or ill-defined.

I repeat: tell us exactly what is meant by phrases like "general welfare"--phrases that are nowhere defined in the document itself--and then tell us whether or not deciding such things is "interpreting" the Constitution.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

So, what solution is there other than revolution?

The constitution prevents the Federal government from doing 90% of the crap it does today. It doesn't police itself, the people don't police it.

I agree the SCOTUS is elitist and ultimately will not defend my version of liberty. But the reality is that the people have done nothing to mitigate false readings of the second amendment. The executive and legislative branches ignore it. The SCOTUS is the branch of government that gave us Heller (compromised as that decision is).

So, if we accept that the SCOTUS is too elite and statist to be the ultimate arbiters or defenders of liberty, then all that is left is the infringing legislature, the megalomaniacal executive, and the apathetic people.

What do we do then? Or is that the point? To eliminate all the false options, and force the inevitable conclusion? And am I right in seeing that conclusion being revolution?

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Flyer22 wrote:

I repeat:  tell us exactly what is meant by phrases like "general welfare"--phrases that are nowhere defined in the document itself--and then tell us whether or not deciding such things is "interpreting" the Constitution.

One useless aspect to this discussion is the confusion over the meaning of "interpret".

Every act of decoding syntax is an "interpretation". No value statement implied. An "interpretation" may be valid, or invalid, it may fully consider context or it may not. But "interpret" is, in fact, what every person does when they analyze any input, as AWDstylzed mentioned earlier.

It is simply incorrect usage to declare that "interpretation" is, by definition, all acts of misinterpretation. (Notice there is a negative form, which doesn't mean "to not engage in any interpretation of", but rather "to interpret incorrectly.)

Edit: For example, I will declare that the second amendment is an individual right. We can all agree on the meaning of the second amendment (I hope). However, this is still our interpretation. It may be a correct interpretation, it may be (and in fact is) the only correct interpretation; but it is still just that: an interpretation. No value statement implied.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

It is simply incorrect usage to declare that "interpretation" is, by definition, all acts of misinterpretation. (Notice there is a negative form, which doesn't mean "to not engage in any interpretation of", but rather "to interpret incorrectly.)

This.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

The constitution issupposedly so overwhelmingly obvious, yet people disagree on it.

Only with their mouths. Everyone is in complete agreement on what it says.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

Flyer22 wrote:

You keep talking about what is not meant by those abused clauses. When are you going to tell us what is meant? Or are you going to just keep taking things away until there's nothing left for those clauses to cover?

Ok, so what is meant by a clause? Well, a clause can be independent, but most of the times, it is supporting or supported by other qualifiers that would include other clauses or words in the form of the subject.

Let's look at the commerce clause. Article I of the US Constitution states "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;..." as the permission to the Congress to keep regular these activities, which was the meaning of the clause at the time of the framing. However, the Constitution does not just stop there... this clause isn't alone and there is more in Article I about commerce, for example; "No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another" However, also in Article I, it clearly states "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" This means any law that takes away one's civil rights is not allowed... yet how many laws do just that? Laws pertaining to commerce that take away our civil rights... laws that force us to do things with our property that we would not otherwise do, and laws that make it almost impossible to keep our property if we do not succumb to the force imposed on us.

Flyer22 wrote:

I repeat: tell us exactly what is meant by phrases like "general welfare"--phrases that are nowhere defined in the document itself--and then tell us whether or not deciding such things is "interpreting" the Constitution.

An even more insidious use of a clause comes with the abuse of the "General Welfare" clause.Article I, Section 8 states: "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" But our government has taken that and twisted it to give themselves powers to provide for specific individual welfare... something even the founders were adamantly against;

"The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed"~ Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

Most will read this and understand that what is happening today is not because the Constitution gave them the right, but instead because these clauses have been twisted and the meanings have been changed to give government officials the means to further their own goals at the expense of the Constitution. The founders were very clear on what "General Welfare" meant, yet our current elected officials ignore it for their own ill gotten gains and authoritarian goals.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Edit: For example, I will declare that the second amendment is an individual right. We can all agree on the meaning of the second amendment (I hope). However, this is still our interpretation. It may be a correct interpretation, it may be (and in fact is) the only correct interpretation; but it is still just that: an interpretation. No value statement implied.

If the only document written and surviving to modern times was the Constitution, I would agree with you. However, we cannot say we did not know what the framer's positions were on the individual's right to keep and bear arms now can we? John Adams and James Madison both made it very clear;

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." ~ John Adams

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, that could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it." ~ James Madison, "The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared," 46 Federalist New York Packet, January 29, 1788

There are plenty more examples that support the rest of the Constitution making interpretation an unneeded exercise unless your ambitions are to give yourself some way of avoiding the restrictions of the Constitution in an unconstitutional fashion.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Flyer22 wrote:

I repeat: tell us exactly what is meant by phrases like "general welfare"--phrases that are nowhere defined in the document itself--and then tell us whether or not deciding such things is "interpreting" the Constitution.

An even more insidious use of a clause comes with the abuse of the "General Welfare" clause.Article I, Section 8 states: "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" But our government has taken that and twisted it to give themselves powers to provide for specific individual welfare... something even the founders were adamantly against;

"The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed"~ Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

Most will read this and understand that what is happening today is not because the Constitution gave them the right, but instead because these clauses have been twisted and the meanings have been changed to give government officials the means to further their own goals at the expense of the Constitution. The founders were very clear on what "General Welfare" meant, yet our current elected officials ignore it for their own ill gotten gains and authoritarian goals.

You didn't answer his question. You again told us what you think the clause DOESN'T mean. Now, tell us what it DOES mean.



This whole thread...

 

[smoking357]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Edit: For example, I will declare that the second amendment is an individual right. We can all agree on the meaning of the second amendment (I hope). However, this is still our interpretation.

No interpretation of the Second Amendment, in any wise, creates or diminishes the individual right to keep and bear arms.

This right long preexisted the Second Amendment.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

For those of you wanting to know what it means, read Federalist Paper 41.

However, if you're too lazy, the general welfare means the protections of all rights enumerated and not enumerated in the Constitution. Upholding our Liberty and Freedom is protecting the general welfare. Anything specific is not.

Specific welfare is not 'general welfare'. General welfare isthe preservation of individual freedom and Liberty.

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

Once again WFL demonstrates his inability to accept commentary on his person, while freely dishing it out. Sadly his type of right wing elitists fail to uphold liberty nor freedom, all the while claiming to do just that.

Let me put it simpler for you WFL.

You're a ******* idiot.

You take the most extreme possible views of law and the constitution, and spin it to ensure that you are constantly victimized and besieged by those who do not thing as you do. In that sense you are no better than the liberal statist, or the crazed nutter hiding in the woods proclaiming his milisha.

You reject any argument presented to you under the guise that the person presenting it does not fall within your extremely radical and narrow views, then seek to portray those people as enemies of liberty. In typical fashion, you create your own class enemies to justify beliefs that have little grounding in reality. This leaves you firmly entrenched in the notions of your own moral superiority, and lets you reject anyone who does adhere to your peculiar notions.

Your type can never be reasoned with, nor hold proper discourse. You run crying that you are being attacked at every possible opportunity, and then fall back on denouncing those who do not agree with you to avoid reasonable discourse, and to continue portraying yourself as the noble victim and guardian of your cause.

So again, stooping to your level, and to better feed your self centered victimhood, **** you.

You and your type are the problem, and not the solution. It is your kind who bomb federal buildings. It is your kind who gun down police officers and government officials who have done no harm to you. It is your kind who plot to destroy what you do not agree with, and your type who become the wild eyed destroyers of society. It is your kind who cause untold harm and damage, all in the name of a twisted version of "liberty" that does not include those who do not see things your way.

It is my most sincere belief that you, and others of your ilk someday leave this forum and instead go back to your bunkers, your klavens, your conspiracy groups, and every other place people like you hide and spread your diseased notions of how things should be. You are no better than the Obama's of the world, and do as much harm.

This website was better before you, and the countless other dittoheads showed up spewing your anger, hate and mistrust. You are powerless and show it with your fear and hatred of the world around you.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Flyer22 wrote:

You keep talking about what is not meant by those abused clauses. When are you going to tell us what is meant? Or are you going to just keep taking things away until there's nothing left for those clauses to cover?

Ok, so what is meant by a clause?

Let it go. They pay lip service to the Constitution while wanting an oligarchy of the courts. These are neither friends of freedom or the Constitution. They know it's pleasant-sounding to preach allegiance to the Constitution, so they do so while talking out the other side of their mouths and advocating unicameral rule. These are permission-seekers, and they're deathly afraid of holding Liberty, positively mortified of taking any step to claim it.

They lack imagination. Their minds run out of gas quickly when it's shown to them that their arguments are anti-constitutional and untenable. They take the intellectual shortcut of saying "it's either this way or the abyss," and since they're terrified of the abyss, they'll cling to the status quo with all ferocity.

There's nothing inherently wrong with setting up a government that has a group of judges as the supreme body, with subordinate branches serving in advisory or executive roles. It's just not our way.

Let them be. They want to be ruled. It's a common human weakness.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

You didn't answer his question. You again told us what you think the clause DOESN'T mean. Now, tell us what it DOES mean.

But you already know. If you want to make it explicit, though a need to do so does not seem imperative, follow the Constitution. Call a Constitutional Convention, and have the states sort out the matter. These are the rules.

Don't cheat the game by letting a small group ignore the Rule Book.

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

Let them be. They want to be ruled. It's a common human weakness.

**** you too.

You and your kind are the lowest and worst sort. You espouse a "truth" that does not exist, and then create strawmen arguments that ensure you always come out as the person is always right.

If you ******* crackheads can't figure it out yet, just because a person does not drink the same flavor of kool aid that calls for near anarchism and violent revolution (you all claim to abhor violence, but always gravitate towards a worldview that allows for destruction of any sort of organized government through force of arms) doesn't mean they are the enemy.

While you might wank off dreaming of shooting government agents in defense of "liberty" and enjoy finding convoluted views of government that never existed to justify your extremist views, you are a distinct minority. Unfortunately your kind are always the loudest and drown out folks who simply don't want to put up with your ignorance. Well, I'm ******* sick of it. I'm sick of nearly every ******* gun board I go to is overrun by your type. I'm ******* sick of just leaving a board because the noise to signal ratio has gotten to high. I'm ******* sick of having conversations with friends that start out "I've stopped going to such and such forum because of all the crazy nutters." Well here you go. Your an asshole and an idiot. Leave. Please. Go start some forum where you all talk about the Turner Diaries and how you want to blow up Ryder trucks.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

Let me put it simpler for you WFL.

You're a @#$%ing idiot.

You're proving his point, exceptionally well. A true impasse affords few options. How does this resolve itself? How can it resolve itself? You want to strip him of his Liberty, and he has other plans. Your position can only be held through perpetual force, intimidation and fear. Maintaining your position is very expensive, and the dollar is just about squandered. You're going to need more force, intrusion and warping of the foundational documents to sustain your power. Such governments always fail.

When you broaden your mind and confront the freedom option, you might be pleasantly surprised at how easily a free government fits men. You'll also find it more economical. If you can just get past your difficulty with letting men be free, you'll be on your way to a truly sustainable government.

 

[R a Z o R]

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

You're a @#$%ing idiot.

YOUR MAMA said for me to tell you that she'll be home late .

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

Smoking357, I actually believe WFL is truly a ******* idiot. I've just finally had enough of his moonbattery, strawman arguments, and insane way of looking at things. So I've decided to flat out lay it down.

Also I think you are in the same league as him.

I think OCDO has gotten overrun with ******* idiots who all try to peddle a kool aid called "liberty" and "freedom" that actually isn't. Also moonbats have been crawling out of their bunkers, and other places ever since Obama got elected. It's a cycle. During the Clinton years the right wing moonbats were shrieking all over the place. Then they shut up during the Bush years, with a brief appearance around 9/11. Then Obama gets elected and they're all back.

The same idiots that gave us the gun shortage, primer shortage, and ammo shortage with their half baked theories and unreasoning panic, are also the same ones overruning OCDO and most every other gun forum. I've left several because of them, but I'm not leaving this one. I'm tired of being overwhelmed by the moonbats, and I'm fighting back.

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

R a Z o R wrote:

sv_libertarian wrote:

You're a @#$%ing idiot.

YOUR MAMA said for me to tell you that she'll be home late .

ROTFLMAO! You're funny. Find that one on a joke repository?