Why don't we recite the US Constitution.

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

Yes, you should read it whenever you can.

The US Constitution is special, why would you not want to call a special gathering to read it?

Because the actual intent of the reading was disingenuous. People (even congress people) can read between the lines.

It is the open space, what is allowed to the government and denied to the people, what is allowed to the rich, and disallowed to the people to prevent that is the test of the constitution... It is like the Bible: Something for everyone, even war makers and stone killers and pornographers... You can read anything you want into it and take from it only what you desire... It has no teeth for good cause, and is a shark in defense of evil... And it is impossible for this misled and divided people to change in any meaningful fashion...

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

Politicians on both sides sometimes go too far when it comes to interpreting intent, but it is mostly conservatives that work to protect the US Constitution and mostly liberals that work to weaken the US Constitution.

I doubt either side believes that it is actively and intentionally weakening the US Constitution. Both sides work to protect what they interpret the constitution to mean.

WEll YA! And while we are fighting over meaning, the rich who own the thing are deciding meaning, as they have been deciding meaning from the start... It gives the government no power over property but taxation, and taxing property was once the support of the government... Now, the income tax which was instituted to get money wealth to pay its share has been used to empoverish the whole nation and to protect property from taxation... The government, owned by the rich, refuses to tax the rich and so helps the rich to have total control over all our lives... They decide national and international policy.. They make the laws and see them enforced... This is not the land of the free... This is the land of the rich who own the poor...

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

Politicians on both sides sometimes go too far when it comes to interpreting intent, but it is mostly conservatives that work to protect the US Constitution and mostly liberals that work to weaken the US Constitution.

OBVIOUSLY; conservatives support it in an orthodox manner.

That is what makes them CONSERVATIVES. The Constitution is what thay conserve,
whereas the Constitution is that from which liberals deviate; therefore, thay are liberals.
Without that deviation, without that distortion,
thay 'd not be able to be liberal.
Conservative and liberal are both relative words.

In this particular case, the subject matter
of the conservation or of the deviation is the Constitution.

Clearly, people can be conservative or liberal
(orthodox or deviant) according to many other criteria.
For instance, I am LIBERAL qua English spelling.

WELL SAID, Waterman!!!

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

So David..

Who decides all cases concerning the Constitution?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

So David..

Who decides all cases concerning the Constitution?

Cases of litigation are decided in the courts wherein thay r brawt.
The law (including the Constitution) is applied to the facts.
Judgment is rendered upon the basis thereof.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

So... let me ask you again.

WHO decides ALL cases concerning the Constitution?

When there is a question of meaning of the Constitution, who decides it?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

That is blatant, simple-minded and dull-witted bigotry openly expressed. If you had an ounce of intelligence, you'd be ashamed to make such a remark publicly.

You obviously haven't been paying attention.

0 Replies

At my doubles tennis match the other day, I suggested that we first read the constitution. My three conservative co-players laughed. I gather that they are unconcerned about acting unconstitutionally.

1 Reply

@parados,

U want me to be redundant??

Were u dissatisfied with my answer
the first time that u asked that question?

If so: Y ?

David

1 Reply

@Advocate,

The Constitution of your Tennis Club ?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

So, do you believe in the Constitution or not David?

You can't admit that the Constitution says courts decide what the Constitution means and then argue that the courts don't get to decide.

2 Replies

@parados,

A much braver soul than I takes on the mighty ex-lawyer, mensan, OmSigDavid. On issues of law no less.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

So, do you believe in the Constitution or not David?

I do.

parados wrote:

You can't admit that the Constitution says courts decide what the Constitution means
and then argue that the courts don't get to decide.

The Constitution does not say that.
If u allege that it DOES,
then please quote the operative language
whereby this power is granted to the judiciary.
I agree with John Marshall's rationale in Marbury v. Madison,
5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) to wit,
that courts do not have the power to interpret
the Constitution, but thay have the power
to DECIDE CASES of litigation brawt before them
for adjudication, and in so doing, thay must
apply the law. In such cases as thay find a conflict
between the Constitution and the law,
then the law must be subordinated to the Constitution,
and stare decisis applies to the result.
(An unConstitutional law is null and void.)

This is well settled law, and I believe that
every decent high school student is aware of it.
We were when I was in high school
(of course then, it was tawt in current events).

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

This is a fatuous argument, because the only time anyone DECIDES what passages in the Constitution mean is when they are brought before the courts.

The courts ARE interpreting the constitution WHEN they decide cases before them. The power to decide those cases is inherently the power to interpret.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This is a fatuous argument, because the only time anyone DECIDES what passages
in the Constitution mean is when they are brought before the courts.

The courts ARE interpreting the constitution WHEN they decide cases before them.
The power to decide those cases is inherently the power to interpret.

Cycloptichorn

Tell that to John Marshall.
That s HIS argument, not mine; u wanna kill the messenger.
I did not decide Marbury,
but I 'm not going to twist it, either; I 'm no liberal.

He certainly WAS fatuous in 1833
with the Barron case.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

So David..

When a case rests on the interpretation of the meaning of a phrase in the Constitution, who decides that case?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Tell that to John Marshall.

Tell what to John Marshall? That stare decisis should play a role in interpreting the Constitution?

Do you think we should pay deference to stare decisis when interpreting the Constitution David? Or do you think we should ignore court rulings and only rely on the words and how a particular individual who isn't a judge wants to interpret those words?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

So David..

When a case rests on the interpretation of the
meaning of a phrase in the Constitution,
who decides that case?

The trial court and any subsequent appellate courts; obviously, who else ??

David

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Do you think we should pay deference to stare decisis when interpreting the Constitution David?

Yes; consistency is good, if u can do so in good faith.
If there were a precedent that I knew to be unreasonable,
or foolish in light of known history
(e.g. Barron v. Baltimore or Wickard v. Filburn),
then I woud not follow that precedent, if I were judging that case.

parados wrote:

Or do you think we should ignore court rulings and only rely on the words
and how a particular individual who isn't a judge wants to interpret those words?

Who is not a judge?? Well, there have been experts' briefs filed,
e.g., the professional grammarians in HELLER; thay revealed
the exact meaning of the text of the 2A.
That is credit worthy. Thay were not judges.
I approve of the factual certainty that thay provided, qua parsing the 2nd Amendment.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Well, there have been experts' briefs filed,
e.g., the professional grammarians in HELLER; thay revealed
the exact meaning of the text of the 2A.
That is credit worthy. Thay were not judges.
I approve of the factual certainty that thay provided, qua parsing the 2nd Amendment.

Would their words still have revealed the exact meaning if a judge ruled otherwise?

1 Reply

Why don't we recite the US Constitution.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know