Why Constitutional Interpretation is Dangerous to Liberty

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

You're the master of uselss rambling. Are you going to answer my question now?

blah blah blah blah

If I see ad hominem one more time I'm going to take a shit on you, right through the computer.



Now, answer the question that you DID NOT answer.

Who decides whether laws are incompliance.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

-

Being repetitive won't help your cause... the question was answered. The Constitution decides by virtue of what is written in it. The Constitution is a literal document... this means, it means what is written in it verbatim. So, if you do not see a provision for an FCC, FBI, CIA, FDA, FDIC, FTC, SEC or Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, Department of Health and Human Services etc , then they cannot exist. They are extra-constitutional and therefore illegal. Same with any law that isn't directly supported in the Constitution word for word. Everything that isn't word for word supported in the Constitution is unconstitutional and illegal.

Having a static set of rules to govern how and what government can do was the original intent due to the founders understanding of how a government with too much power could easily become tyrannical. Make it hard to change or make laws and you'll keep your Liberty and freedom much longer. We're now at the point where 99% of what all levels of government do is unconstitutional and many of them know it... but they are of course authoritarians and don't care.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

-

Being repetitive won't help your cause... the question was answered. The Constitution decides by virtue of what is written in it.

The constitution is not a living being and cannot decide jack @#$%, it cannot enforce jack @#$%, and cannot speak on behalf of itself, or speak at all for that matter.

One last time, before everyone just writes you off as a bigger idiot than you already are...

Who decides whether laws are incompliance?





What you can't seem to comprehend is that even if you a society that has a single rule, that is literally black and white simple, there still needs to be some entity that recognizes white and black, and enforces the rule.

Example:

Rule - all women must wear white, all men must wear black.

Self explanitory, black/white (literally), right? So when someone puts on green, who's going to stop them? Who determines whether off-white qualifies as white, or whether dark-grey qualifies as black? Is metalic black "black"? How about flat black, is that black? Who designates "this color is black" and "this color is white?" My computer monitor is black, but it's a different black than the computer tower, which is a different black than the mouse, etc. The boxes they came in all called them"black." Who determines which is the actual "black" meant by the rule?

 

[smoking357]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

You're the master of uselss rambling. Are you going to answer my question now?

blah blah blah blah

If I see ad hominem one more time I'm going to take a @#$% on you, right through the computer.



Now, answer the question that you DID NOT answer.

Who decides whether laws are incompliance.

Why do you think anyone gets to decide whether laws are in compliance?

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

Why do you think anyone gets to decide whether laws are in compliance?

lulz

I vote ban. Anyone else?

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

Ok, let's try this one more time. WFL has no idea what a libertarian is it seems, because he thinks everyone must drink his kool aid, or be a traitor.

Nowhere have I argued against the principles of the libertarian party. I have consistently done two things. One pointed out the moonbattery that WFL likes to spew, and two, argue that SOMEBODY has to declare if a law is compliant or not.

Lets try this one on for size shall we.

Congress passes a bill. Let's say they require women to wear long hair. President signs it, but it gets challenged. It goes to SCOTUS. What does SCOTUS do? According to WFL and his ilk, SCOTUS sits on it's butt, and says "ooh bad law, no donut". According to the rest of the world, SCOTUS says "Oooh bad law, THIS IS WHY." That is called reading the Constitution. You cannot read something without interpreting it. That is the whole thing behind reading you know.

If I say the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog, and then asked you what the fox did, you'll tell me that it jumped over the dog. You can tell me it was a brown fox, and it was fairly quick, which also opens up that it was agile, and skillful in moving, because it was able to jump over the dog. You can also tell me a good bit about the dog. All from a plain language sentence. How? YOU INTERPRETED IT.

So when SCOTUS gets a challenge, they have to read the law that was challenged, and then compare it to the constitution. If the law and constitution agree, then all is good. If the law and constitution do not agree, then SCOTUS must say why, and that boys and girls requires reading and INTERPRETING the constitution. When this is done right, everything is happy. When it is perverted then things are not so happy. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE CHECKS AND BALANCES. No system works perfectly, so you build FAILSAFES into it. If SCOTUS isn't doing their job the Senate could have them removed. If Congress isn't doing it's job, SCOTUS can rule on their errors. if POTUS screws up, he can be impeached. And so on.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

You're the master of uselss rambling.  Are you going to answer my question now?

blah blah blah blah

If I see ad hominem one more time I'm going to take a @#$% on you, right through the computer.

 

Now, answer the question that you DID NOT answer.

Who decides whether laws are in compliance.

Why do you think anyone gets to decide whether laws are in compliance?

Under our current government, the people are self-evidently incapable of doing it for themselves.

 

[R a Z o R]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

If I see ad hominem one more time I'm going to take a @#$% on you, right through the computer.



Now, answer the question that you DID NOT answer.

AWDstylez ,

That picture of you in the computer room with all the hair and one eyebrow was scary enough . You have taken OC to a new frontier .

Please do not take a @#$% on your computer screen .

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

Congress passes a bill. Let's say they require women to wear long hair.

What part of the Constitution says Congress can make a law about length of hair? If it isn't in the Constitution, they cannot do it and no one would have to obey it. They're not in Congress to make laws to govern the people. They're there to approve of treaties, handle negotiations between the States on issues of trade, manage the Post Office and approve or disapprove of Judges appointed to the courts and of coursethe matters of war and peace.

If it is not in the italicsections below... CONGRESS CANNOT DO IT!!!

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 Offenses 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.

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

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.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Please point out the exact phrase where it says they can make laws regarding hair. How about pointing out the phrase where it says they can take 35% taxes from oneAmericanand give it to another! And the rule is, if you cannot find the EXACT WORDS to justify these acts... thenthe ability tomake the laws in the first place donot exist and cannot be done! I have bolded the one passage that makes 99% of all laws and acts passed by Congress illegal and unconstitutional. The limits are real, but have been ignored for too long at Liberty's peril.

You seem to think that by moderating how much liberty you'll allow them to steal from you, that somehow they'll see you as reasonable and therefore be reasonable themselves. When has that EVER happened??? The short answer is that it has not ever happened. Give them an inch and they take a mile. The next time you give them an inch, they take another mile... before you know it... you're falling off a cliff.

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

Ahh now I see what you are up to. You have the notion that Congress would never try passing an unconstitutional law, nor that anyone would try to enforce it once passed.

Well unfortunately we don't live in that world.

That is why there are checks and balances.

One branch does something screwy, we have the hope that another will act against it.

Plus do you not understand hypothetical?

SCOTUS can order that an unconstitutional law not be enforced by those who are trying to enforce it.

But then this is where your noble armed citizen warrior comes in right? That's the last resort BTW.

Congress WILL pass illegal laws. People WILL try to enforce them. So SCOTUS puts a stop to that. No liberty lost in SCOTUS being able to do that.

BUT we as a people MUST hold government accountable, otherwise they will do whatever they want anyway.

The system works, we have to put the right operators in charge.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

sv_libertarian wrote:

Congress passes a bill.  Let's say they require women to wear long hair. 

What part of the Constitution says Congress can make a law about length of hair? If it isn't in the Constitution, they cannot do it and no one would have to obey it.

But congress passes unconstitutional laws all the time. And people don't ignore them.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

SNIP But congress passes unconstitutional laws all the time. And people don't ignore them.

Given the recent reckless, profligate spending--and the confiscatory taxes that are sure to follow--I am convinced more than ever that we are ruled by thieves.

 

[Flyer22]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

sv_libertarian wrote:

Congress passes a bill. Let's say they require women to wear long hair.

What part of the Constitution says Congress can make a law about length of hair? If it isn't in the Constitution, they cannot do it and no one would have to obey it. They're not in Congress to make laws to govern the people. They're there to approve of treaties, handle negotiations between the States on issues of trade, manage the Post Office and approve or disapprove of Judges appointed to the courts and of coursethe matters of war and peace.

This paragraph, by itself,is positive proof that you never paid attention in English class. The word "can" means physical ability. The word that you are vainly striving to find in the above paragraph is "may," which refers to permission. I CANdrive my car at highspeedinto a crowd of people, but the law does not give me PERMISSION to do so.

Furthermore, since you are so adamant that language is so clear, please tell me what I mean by this sentence: Jack gave Jill a bow. Do I mean (1), an implement for shooting arrows, or (2), a physical gesture of respect?

 

[N00blet45]

imported post

Trick question, you meant bow as in a hair bow.

The problem with the Supreme Court interpreting laws is that it essentially makes them part of the political system. They're supposed to be unbiased and not hold political views. If that were really true then it wouldn't be a big deal which president appointed which justice.

I think the original intent was for the people to ignore/resist unconstitutional laws. The conversations between the founders alludes to their trust in the people as the bulwark of liberty.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

Ok, let's try this one more time. WFL has no idea what a libertarian is it seems,

He has an outstanding grasp on the subject, as his analysis of you shows you to be an authoritarian and an oligarch, which you certainly are.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

Ahh now I see what you are up to. You have the notion that Congress would never try passing an unconstitutional law, nor that anyone would try to enforce it once passed.

Well unfortunately we don't live in that world.

Wow, a perfect circle.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

Flyer22 wrote:

Jack gave Jill a bow. Do I mean (1), an implement for shooting arrows, or (2), a physical gesture of respect?

How is Jack's gift, in any case, the government's business or a constitutional question?

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

If it is not in the italicsections below... CONGRESS CANNOT DO IT!!!

You, I find that very funny because THEY DO IT ALL THE TIME!!1!!!!!!1!!!

That's like me drawing a circle around someone and saying you CANnot leave that area. Of course they CAN leave the area, it's justa circle of paint, they can step right over. So what do I do when they step over? "OMG!!! OMG!!! OMG!!! YOU CAN'T DO THAT!! IT'S NOT POSSIBLE!!!!"... as they proceed to walk away and laugh at me.




Now answer my @#$%ing question, WHO TELLS THEM WHEN THEY'RE WRONG? WHO STOPS THEM WHEN THEY'RE WRONG? WHO DOES AWAY WITH THE LAW?

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Flyer22 wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

sv_libertarian wrote:

Congress passes a bill. Let's say they require women to wear long hair.

What part of the Constitution says Congress can make a law about length of hair? If it isn't in the Constitution, they cannot do it and no one would have to obey it. They're not in Congress to make laws to govern the people. They're there to approve of treaties, handle negotiations between the States on issues of trade, manage the Post Office and approve or disapprove of Judges appointed to the courts and of coursethe matters of war and peace.

This paragraph, by itself,is positive proof that you never paid attention in English class. The word "can" means physical ability. The word that you are vainly striving to find in the above paragraph is "may," which refers to permission. I CANdrive my car at highspeedinto a crowd of people, but the law does not give me PERMISSION to do so.

Furthermore, since you are so adamant that language is so clear, please tell me what I mean by this sentence: Jack gave Jill a bow. Do I mean (1), an implement for shooting arrows, or (2), a physical gesture of respect?

Quoted for double the ownage via second grade english.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

N00blet45 wrote:

I think the original intent was for the people to ignore/resist unconstitutional laws. The conversations between the founders alludes to their trust in the people as the bulwark of liberty.

So who decides what is and isn't constitutional? This group thinks one thing, that group thinks another... as we've seen in this thread, idiots think they're right no matter how much logic you confront them with... so what happens now? I have an idea...

Shoot it out!!! Last person standing is right. I knew we'd come back tothat eventually, because that's what WFL's world always boils down to.



The fact of the matter is that the constitution only actually means one thing. The problem is that for every person in this country there's a different opinion on what it means. Somewhere, we have to have an entity that has the authority to say, "This is what it means, the end." You can't please all the people all the time. All the people that agree will say, "Yay! See, I knew the judicial system works!" And all the people that don't agree will come on OC.org and bitch and whine about how the Supreme Court is destroying America. Them's the breaks. Tough @#$%. Don't like it? Work at changing it, otherwise...there's the door.