Why Constitutional Interpretation is Dangerous to Liberty

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

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!!1!!!!!!1!

And we have no one to blame save ourselves. In this day and age when communication is so easy and grassroots can get millions animated and involved, it is shameful that we continue to allow our representatives the leeway to do whatever they please and expect the courts (whose job it never was) to do our job for us. We (as a whole) abdicated our role as watchdog over our representatives and so we are at where we are currently at with authoritarians usurping huge swathes of power each and every week.

The latest slap in the face is the part of the new health care bill on page 16 where it essentially makes private health care illegal. We let them do this through ignorance of of what Liberty and Freedom means and ignorance of what we were given by our founders. Franklin knew that keeping a Republic would take vigilance, vigilance we have not shewn.

Nothing in the Constitution gives them the powers they have taken... and if millions stand up holding the Constitution in hand and say hell no... well, we'd outnumber them and at least that would be a good start. Over the past 8 years, I've gone over the Constitution with a fine tooth comb and have come up with no justification for the vast majority of what our representatives do. The Patriot Act is an abomination, the Clean Air Act is horrid law, this new Energy Bill punishes the average consumer while giving billions in future revenue to carbon credit exchange companies conveniently owned by Al Gore and other members of Congress....

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. It is us against the political class... oh, and us against the international bankers and financiers who are manipulating markets and currencies at the expense of every honest hard working citizen while our politicians line their pockets from the fallout, and strip us of our liberty in the name of "saving" our economy. It is us against them... unfortunately.

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

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.

Ok, back to grammar school kiddies. Let's try this one again. "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog." What just happened there? How did you reach an understanding of what happened? What conclusions can be drawn from that? How did you reach those conclusions?

If the answer is that you read the sentence, analyzed it for it's various parts and actions taking place in it, and used that to reach an understanding of what the sentence means, then you INTERPRETED IT.

If the answer is something else, you are probably a product of the current publik skool system and should not be on the internet.

So, if a judge reads a portion of the constitution, and compares it to a law or action that is being held up to the constitution in order to determine which is correct, what is the judge doing? Let us say the city of Olympia passes a ban on carrying signs on public sidewalks during certain hours of the day. (They haven't nor have they discussed that of course). I then file a suit in federal court claiming my 1st amendment rights were violated. The federal judge for whatever reason rules against me. I appeal to SCOTUS. SCOTUS then looks at the claim my right to free speech is being violated. They read the 1st amendment. They look at my claim again. They compare my claim to what the 1st amendment says. They look at how carrying signs on public property is a form of speech. They look at where the constitution talks about peaceable assembly, and a host of other things that could be tied in to carrying a sign. Then they rule in my favor pointing out which of my constitutional rights were violated, AND HOW THEY REACHED THAT UNDERSTANDING. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY INTERPRETED THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION AS APPLIES TO THE CASE AT HAND.

The great evil comes when they do not properly apply the constitution, but then again we are supposed to have a three way series of checks and balances right? If the court fails it is not because of the system, but because of who was put in charge of the system.

There is no perfect way to protect liberty. That is why there are so many different ways put in place. We have the right to keep and bear arms, but people abuse that right and use arms to the wrong purpose, just as government abuses their power. It does not mean the power itself is wrong or an enemy of liberty, but merely the person wielding the power is. So you remove the criminal with the gun, or you change government. That is why we have elections.

But that's not as fun as other options is it?

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty 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!!1!!!!!!1!

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. It is us against the political class... oh, and us against the international bankers and financiers who are manipulating markets and currencies at the expense of every honest hard working citizen while our politicians line their pockets from the fallout, and strip us of our liberty in the name of "saving" our economy. It is us against them... unfortunately.

But the free market!!! Free market!!!


Quoted for lulz.



So again, we're back to simply "shoot it out" and let the last man standing dictate what's constitutional. You're an idiot and you're still side stepping the major issue your fake world has... WHO DECIDES WHAT'S CONSTITUTIONAL??

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

International bankers, the "political class" LOL. What's next? Bilderbergers? Illuminati? Got some Bohemian Grove tales for us? Them pesky Jooz in international banking up to something again? Dude, you have more in common than you might want to know with the far left moonbats that live around here.

Oooh what about the lizard people? They have an organized secret cabal of powerful leaders. And the alien human hybrids? Quick! Someone call Mulder, WFL is on to something! (Or on something...)

Here, this link might help you some WFL http://www.cracked.com/article_17469_5-pathetic-groups-that-people-think-rule-world.html

 

[smoking357]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

WHO DECIDES WHAT'S CONSTITUTIONAL??

Here's a quote the anti-Americans hate:

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on
the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me
in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution
which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative
branches."
—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

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 sorry, but there is such a thing as context and intent of those who wrote the piece of legislation... and we don't need the SCOTUS to tell us what our founders thought.... their writing is quite clear on the subject. If you cannot tell which one it is... you have serious learning problems, because context is clear once you read the thoughts and feelings of the founders over the right of every individual to retain their weapons.

Let's take Thomas Jefferson for example;

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.

One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
--- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

I would quote many other founders, but I think you can look up their thoughts by yourself. There was no ambiguity of their convictions, and their thoughts about the right to keep and bear arms was quite clear.We don't need someone to divine what the wishes of the founders were... THEY WROTE THEM DOWN!! Another reason why having the SCOTUS interpret the Constitution is utterly ridiculous is that James Madison took notes over the entire length of the Constitutional Convention.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

Ok, this is general announcement for the thread: sv_libertarian and AWDstylez are trolls. I've repeatedly tried to have polite discussion and arguments in this thread and all they can do is attack and insult. These trolls should be ignored since they cannot behave like adults and have a conversation without attacking people personally.

This message is for you trolls: Get a life... you have serious problems and need to grow up. I highly doubt you behave like this in public, because if you did, you wouldn't have many, if any friends. Again,GROW UP!!!

My discussion with either one of you is now suspended. I will ignore you and you can just talk to yourself until you're blue in the face... I won't answer you.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

we are supposed to have a three way series of checks and balances right? If the court fails it is not because of the system, but because of who was put in charge of the system.

"The system," which so many hard-Left nutjobs here despise, was for each of the two branches to check each other. Unfortunately, that system was corrupted, and a minor, subservient, branch came to exceed the greater two.

Now, our system is not that government which the Founders created, and the minor branch is unchecked, because the Founders never envisioned it would have much power, certainly not enough to check.

Left unchecked, our current system, dominated by an oligarchical branch, is a failure, and we are subject to countless tyrannies that are celebrated by the authoritiarians who despise Liberty and love the Supreme Court, as it is the tool of their evil.

"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

 

[smoking357]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Ok, this is general announcement for the thread: sv_libertarian and AWDstylez are trolls. I've repeatedly tried to have polite discussion and arguments in this thread and all they can do is attack and insult. These trolls should be ignored since they cannot behave like adults and have a conversation without attacking people personally.

A priori, I don't mind anti-gunners like these; I simply cannot be charitable to persons who, when corrected, refuse to accept their lessons and pretend as if they were never taught.

Such a course is purely dishonest and evinces a man of the lowest character.

Ignoring them is likely not a sound plan. Driving them back to their hard-Left asylums is the better course.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

International bankers, the "political class" LOL. What's next? Bilderbergers? Illuminati? Got some Bohemian Grove tales for us? Them pesky Jooz in international banking up to something again? Dude, you have more in common than you might want to know with the far left moonbats that live around here.

Oooh what about the lizard people? They have an organized secret cabal of powerful leaders. And the alien human hybrids? Quick! Someone call Mulder, WFL is on to something! (Or on something...)

No, what's funnier is that he complains about wall street runningamok uncheckedand government regulation in the same paragraph.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

I'm sorry, but there is such a thing as context and intent of those who wrote the piece of legislation... and we don't need the SCOTUS to tell us what our founders thought.... their writing is quite clear on the subject. If you cannot tell which one it is... you have serious learning problems, because context is clear once you read the thoughts and feelings of the founders over the right of every individual to retain their weapons.

Now go back and sv's post on the judicial process, and letteh lulz @ you ensue.

 

[WheelGun]

imported post

Call Noah. We need a flood.

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Ok, this is general announcement for the thread: sv_libertarian and AWDstylez are trolls. I've repeatedly tried to have polite discussion and arguments in this thread and all they can do is attack and insult. These trolls should be ignored since they cannot behave like adults and have a conversation without attacking people personally.

A priori, I don't mind anti-gunners like these; I simply cannot be charitable to persons who, when corrected, refuse to accept their lessons and pretend as if they were never taught.

Such a course is purely dishonest and evinces a man of the lowest character.

Ignoring them is likely not a sound plan. Driving them back to their hard-Left asylums is the better course.

I'm wondering if Smoking357 and WFL are the same troll?

I've noticed they've given up any real effort, and are falling back to "la la la la la la I can't hear you". Also making "official" pronouncements. And refusing time and time again to answer the most basic of questions posed to them.

Or pretending that they get to pick and choose which parts of a three part checks and balance system (and the only one that is ummm a court of law, and thus able to make spot rulings on things) really matter. In that sense they are like any of the countless people who pick and choose which parts of the constitution they value, and disregard the rest as being inconvenient.

I'm starting to think WFL's misadventures with the Mercer Island Police might have been brought on more by his attitude, than any misbehavior on their part. Incoherent verbal abuse is a good way to get cuffed for a bit. I've noticed the more obnoxious persons usually have the better police encounter stories to tell.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Ok, this is general announcement for the thread: sv_libertarian and AWDstylez are trolls. I've repeatedly tried to have polite discussion and arguments in this thread and all they can do is attack and insult. These trolls should be ignored since they cannot behave like adults and have a conversation without attacking people personally.

A priori, I don't mind anti-gunners like these; I simply cannot be charitable to persons who, when corrected, refuse to accept their lessons and pretend as if they were never taught.

Such a course is purely dishonest and evinces a man of the lowest character.

Ignoring them is likely not a sound plan. Driving them back to their hard-Left asylums is the better course.

I'm wondering if Smoking357 and WFL are the same troll?

Which Sarah sock puppet are you?

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Ok, this is general announcement for the thread: sv_libertarian and AWDstylez are trolls. I've repeatedly tried to have polite discussion and arguments in this thread and all they can do is attack and insult. These trolls should be ignored since they cannot behave like adults and have a conversation without attacking people personally.

A priori, I don't mind anti-gunners like these; I simply cannot be charitable to persons who, when corrected, refuse to accept their lessons and pretend as if they were never taught.

Such a course is purely dishonest and evinces a man of the lowest character.

Ignoring them is likely not a sound plan. Driving them back to their hard-Left asylums is the better course.

I'm wondering if Smoking357 and WFL are the same troll?

Funny, I was thinking the same thing.

Admins, can we get an IP check?

 

[smoking357]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

sv_libertarian wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Ok, this is general announcement for the thread: sv_libertarian and AWDstylez are trolls. I've repeatedly tried to have polite discussion and arguments in this thread and all they can do is attack and insult. These trolls should be ignored since they cannot behave like adults and have a conversation without attacking people personally.

A priori, I don't mind anti-gunners like these; I simply cannot be charitable to persons who, when corrected, refuse to accept their lessons and pretend as if they were never taught.

Such a course is purely dishonest and evinces a man of the lowest character.

Ignoring them is likely not a sound plan. Driving them back to their hard-Left asylums is the better course.

I'm wondering if Smoking357 and WFL are the same troll?

Funny, I was thinking the same thing.

Admins, can we get an IP check?

Just answer these questions honestly: are you paid to post anti-gun rants?

Is this an open account used by several anti-gunners?

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

Can't pull the wool over Smoking357's eyes. Nope, not at all.

What you are so upset against is an organized conspiracy of global bankers, free masons, and the Illuminati as directed by Sarah Brady herself. I report directly to Sarah Brady, and through the efforts of technology created with black ops funding, will soon be able to use jet aircraft chem trails to control the minds of all people in the US.

Fluoridated water was only a start. Soon we will start using UN troops, guided by codes on the backs of road signs to round up everyone who hasn't been properly brainwashed, and put them into FEMA concentration camps, each one capable of holding millions.

Katrina was a dry run for our social control schemes. By using the International Space Station to control weather patterns, we experimented on New Orleans, and would have succeeded, if the Justice League hadn't intervened and destroyed Dick Cheney's Secret Fortress O' Doom.

So now we are back to the original plan of infiltrating OCDO, and taking down WFL and Smoking357 as the last two guardians of true freedom and liberty. Research using our advanced time machine technology has shown that unless those two specific people are stopped right now, they will go on to do untold damage to our cause.

Curse you Smoking357 for finding my plan!

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

Can't pull the wool over Smoking357's eyes. Nope, not at all.

What you are so upset against is an organized conspiracy of global bankers, free masons, and the Illuminati as directed by Sarah Brady herself. I report directly to Sarah Brady, and through the efforts of technology created with black ops funding, will soon be able to use jet aircraft chem trails to control the minds of all people in the US.

Fluoridated water was only a start. Soon we will start using UN troops, guided by codes on the backs of road signs to round up everyone who hasn't been properly brainwashed, and put them into FEMA concentration camps, each one capable of holding millions.

Katrina was a dry run for our social control schemes. By using the International Space Station to control weather patterns, we experimented on New Orleans, and would have succeeded, if the Justice League hadn't intervened and destroyed Dick Cheney's Secret Fortress O' Doom.

So now we are back to the original plan of infiltrating OCDO, and taking down WFL and Smoking357 as the last two guardians of true freedom and liberty. Research using our advanced time machine technology has shown that unless those two specific people are stopped right now, they will go on to do untold damage to our cause.

Curse you Smoking357 for finding my plan!

Oh man... I'm in tears over here. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[WheelGun]

imported post

Someone call the OCDO Mental Health Squad. Please. Hurry.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.