• 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

smoking357

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

AWDstylez wrote:
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!!
So? You can't kill people, but murders happen.

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?
Where in the Constitution does it say that anyone, besides the people through the amendment process, can "do away with" the law?
 

smoking357

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

AWDstylez wrote:
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?
What passage in the constitution gives any branch the right to decide what is and isn't constitutional?
 

AWDstylez

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

smoking357 wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
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!!
So? You can't kill people, but murders happen.


No, that's because I CAN kill people. I'm not PERMITTED to by the law, but I very much CAN.

As pointed out, CAN is an ability to, MAY is a granting of permission.
 

AWDstylez

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

smoking357 wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
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?
What passage in the constitution gives any branch the right to decide what is and isn't constitutional?



It's been quoted multiple times already, GTFO.

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

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

Flyer22 wrote:
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?
See, I told you this was an educational thread.
 

smoking357

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

AWDstylez wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
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!!
So? You can't kill people, but murders happen.


No, that's because I CAN kill people. I'm not PERMITTED to by the law, but I very much CAN.

As pointed out, CAN is an ability to, MAY is a granting of permission.
So?
 

smoking357

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

AWDstylez wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
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?
What passage in the constitution gives any branch the right to decide what is and isn't constitutional?



It's been quoted multiple times already, GTFO.

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. So does it not stand to reason that they have to be able to rule on the constitutionality of laws? Keep in mind, there is nothing FORBIDDING SCOTUS from ruling on constitutional issues.
I asked you a simple question: "What passage in the constitution gives any branch the right to decide what is and isn't constitutional?" You gave me an inapposite quote that said nothing of the sort. To get you to your claim, your quote requires a strained interpretation for the purpose of allowing you to engage in even boundless further interpretations.

One more time, I don't want to hear what you think "stands to reason," because I don't want you writing your own constitution. Let's use the actual words. Under the Constitution that actually exists, show me the passage that gives the judicial branch the right to decide what is and isn't constitutional.
 

smoking357

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

AWDstylez wrote:
smoking357 wrote:

Time for someone to swing the ban hammer. Obvious troll is obvious.
You're in over your head. Not to be crass, but I really am smarter than you - a lot smarter.

You can't win this, because your argument rests on adding to the Constitution, while I'm going to rely on the document, itself.

Given that all real Americans support the Constitution and do not support revisionist meddling with it, you're going to find few friends, and everyone is going to rally around the Constitution.

It's long past 'mate,' but you don't even agree on the rules of the game or even upon what game is being played.
 

AWDstylez

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

smoking357 wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
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?
What passage in the constitution gives any branch the right to decide what is and isn't constitutional?



It's been quoted multiple times already, GTFO.

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. So does it not stand to reason that they have to be able to rule on the constitutionality of laws? Keep in mind, there is nothing FORBIDDING SCOTUS from ruling on constitutional issues.
I asked you a simple question: "What passage in the constitution gives any branch the right to decide what is and isn't constitutional?" You gave me an inapposite quote that said nothing of the sort. To get you to your claim, your quote requires a strained interpretation for the purpose of allowing you to engage in even boundless further interpretations.

One more time, I don't want to hear what you think "stands to reason," because I don't want you writing your own constitution. Let's use the actual words. Under the Constitution that actually exists, show me the passage that gives the judicial branch the right to decide what is and isn't constitutional.



Let's try this again. Read the bolded portion.

That means when there'sa dispute, the SOCTUS says, "This is constitutional" or, "This is not constitutional."

The answer to my question is that the SOCTUS is the entity that decides whether a law is in compliance or not. Sorry, you don't win the million dollars; you didn't answer fast enough.
 

AWDstylez

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

smoking357 wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
smoking357 wrote:

Time for someone to swing the ban hammer. Obvious troll is obvious.
You're in over your head. Not to be crass, but I really am smarter than you - a lot smarter.


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

banhammer2ug.jpg
 

smoking357

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

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

Let's try this again. Read the bolded portion.
Great, true and wise passage. The Court must be able to hear cases brought upon the supreme law of the land.

That means when there's a dispute, the SOCTUS says, "This is constitutional" or, "This is not constitutional."
Non sequitur. You continually fall into the sea when you try to make this jump. It means simply this: when there's a dispute under the Constitution, the court tries the case and applies the Constitution. Nothing more. Pennsylvania sues when New York doesn't recognize Pennsylvania marriages.

The answer to my question is that the SOCTUS is the entity that decides whether a law is in compliance or not. Sorry, you don't win the million dollars; you didn't answer fast enough.
What? Did you mean to delete this prior to posting? Is this from another board? What million dollars?
 

smoking357

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

AWDstylez wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
smoking357 wrote:

Time for someone to swing the ban hammer. Obvious troll is obvious.
You're in over your head. Not to be crass, but I really am smarter than you - a lot smarter.


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Are you educated enough to realise that arguing in a vacuum does not make you correct?
 

AWDstylez

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

smoking357 wrote:
That means when there's a dispute, the SOCTUS says, "This is constitutional" or, "This is not constitutional."
Non sequitur. You continually fall into the sea when you try to make this jump. It means simply this: when there's a dispute under the Constitution, the court tries the case and applies the Constitution. Nothing more. Pennsylvania sues when New York doesn't recognize Pennsylvania marriages.



In order to "apply" the Constitution they must interpret the meaning of it. When they make a ruling on the case, they determine whether the law/issue/whatever is in compliance with the constitution or not, which is exactly what I just said.



This has been explained to you in numerous examples. Maybe a direct one will help your simple mind.

"Keep and bear arms" Nowhere does the constitution define arms. It's the job of the court to determine what was meant by "arms." That's interpreting.

For your reference:

arm[suP]1[/suP]
play_w2("A0425900")


(ärm)

n.
1. An upper limb of the human body, connecting the hand and wrist to the shoulder.
2. A part similar to a human arm, such as the forelimb of an animal or a long part projecting from a central support in a machine.
3. Something, such as a sleeve on a garment or a support on a chair, that is designed to cover or support the human arm.
4. A relatively narrow extension jutting out from a large mass: an arm of the sea. See Synonyms at branch.
5. An administrative or functional branch, as of an organization.
6. Power or authority: the long arm of the law.
7. Sports The skill of throwing or pitching a ball well.
arm[suP]2[/suP]
play_w2("A0425900")


(ärm)

n.
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.
3. arms
a. Warfare: a call to arms against the invaders.
b. Military service: several million volunteers under arms; the profession of arms.
4. arms
a. Heraldry Bearings.
b. Insignia, as of a state, an official, a family, or an organization.
v. armed, arm·ing, arms
v.intr.
1. To supply or equip oneself with weaponry.
2. To prepare oneself for warfare or conflict.
v.tr.
1. To equip with weapons: armed themselves with loaded pistols; arm a missile with a warhead; arm a nation for war.
2. To equip with what is needed for effective action: tax advisers who were armed with the latest forms.
3. To provide with something that strengthens or protects: a space reentry vehicle that was armed with a ceramic shield.
4. To prepare (a weapon) for use or operation, as by releasing a safety device.


That's a lot of different arms. Which one is it? I thought language was plain and simple, andthere was only one meaning?



I'm done. Someone else can take over the job of making you look stupid.

 

smoking357

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

AWDstylez wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
That means when there's a dispute, the SOCTUS says, "This is constitutional" or, "This is not constitutional."
Non sequitur. You continually fall into the sea when you try to make this jump. It means simply this: when there's a dispute under the Constitution, the court tries the case and applies the Constitution. Nothing more. Pennsylvania sues when New York doesn't recognize Pennsylvania marriages.


In order to "apply" the Constitution they must interpret the meaning of it.
Where in the Constitution does it say this?

When they make a ruling on the case, they determine whether the law/issue/whatever is in compliance with the constitution or not,
Not quite. They merely determine who wins the case.

which is exactly what I just said.
That's far from what you've tried to argue, so I'm glad I've beaten you back into a position that's a bit more American.
 

sv_libertarian

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

So in order for SCOTUS to rule on "who wins the case" how do they determine who wins? They read the constitution, do they not? And as several examples have shown, the mere act of reading something requires you to umm interpret it.

So if SCOTUS said "This law violates free speech" how did they reach that conclusion? Yes the 1st is fairly clear on that regard, which means that they had to read and UNDERSTAND the words contained therein. And to UNDERSTAND it, you must be able to grasp the meaning, or INTERPRET it.
 

smoking357

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

sv_libertarian wrote:
the mere act of reading something requires you to umm interpret it.
Prove it.

Further, prove how an internal "interpretation" necessary to make a ruling permits a published "interpretation" of the document.

So if SCOTUS said "This law violates free speech" how did they reach that conclusion?
First, show how would they ever get to hear such a case under the Constitution.
 

N00blet45

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

I'm not questioning whether they are permitted to interpret the constitution (I can go either way based on practicality/literal reading). I'm questioning how they can reach a conclusion via interpretation that runs counter to the intent constitution and call it constitutional.

The problem isn't that they interpret the constitution, it's that they interpret it in a way that is opposite of the original intent. The constitution is not a living document open to new interpretations. I can forgive an interpretation that goes off in a certain direction. I cannot tolerate one that for allows a right on paper but not in practice (ex: may-issue states).

It isn't that I'm a cry baby wanting my interpretation to be law. I can tolerate slight deviations from the original intent. It's that I have a huge problem when the court interprets the constitution in a way that contradicts itself. An example would be "the people" affirming an individual right in one amendment but a collective right (does that even exist?) in another. Logical interpretation that does not run counter to the constitution is the key.
 
Top