Trump Effect

[OlDawg]

52 minutes ago, UT alum said:

What does “as intended” mean? The Constitution was written as a document whose interpretation could fit the context of changing times, as the Founders knew that 1976 or 2026 would be unimaginably different than their day. They were men of immense foresight.

“As intended” means exactly what it says. The original intent. Otherwise known as originalism.

Any other type of interpretation is nothing more than an attempt to change the Constitution because you don’t like what it says and means.

The Constitution doesn’t change with the times, and was never meant to do so. As you say, the framers were thoughtful. They thought of a way to adapt the Constitution to new situations.

The manner is done by the same method as was used to create the Constitution. “By the people” through Amendments.

[Reagan]

31 minutes ago, baddog said:

Jefferson spoke against liberalism, so there’s that. Benedict Arnold would have been executed if caught, today he would be governor of California or mayor of NYC.

^^^^True This^^^^

[UT alum]

30 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

“As intended” means exactly what it says. The original intent. Otherwise known as originalism.

Any other type of interpretation is nothing more than an attempt to change the Constitution because you don’t like what it says and means.

The Constitution doesn’t change with the times, and was never meant to do so. As you say, the framers were thoughtful. They thought of a way to adapt the Constitution to new situations.

The manner is done by the same method as was used to create the Constitution. “By the people” through Amendments.

Then why have a Supreme Court. Does the Constitution limit them to interpreting only within the context of the world as it existed in 1789? 

[UT alum]

46 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

“As intended” means exactly what it says. The original intent. Otherwise known as originalism.

Any other type of interpretation is nothing more than an attempt to change the Constitution because you don’t like what it says and means.

The Constitution doesn’t change with the times, and was never meant to do so. As you say, the framers were thoughtful. They thought of a way to adapt the Constitution to new situations.

The manner is done by the same method as was used to create the Constitution. “By the people” through Amendments.

I submit this for your consideration. Judicial review dates to 1803 and Marbury vs Madison.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[UT alum]

1 hour ago, Reagan said:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt:  This has always been a liberal talking point.  Why do you think this is true?  

Judicial review, as first used in Marbury vs Madison in 1803.

[OlDawg]

4 hours ago, UT alum said:

Then why have a Supreme Court. Does the Constitution limit them to interpreting only within the context of the world as it existed in 1789? 

SCOTUS is there to serve the Constitution, and the people that fall under it's law. It's not there--as some would believe--for judicial review as you're defining like a power grab. Marbury vs. Madison basically established that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and SCOTUS HAS to follow it. Whether they think they know better or not.

Instead of thinking of SCOTUS as being the arbiter of law, think of SCOTUS as HAVING to use the Constitution as originally intended to verify legality of an existing or proposed law. In other words, think of SCOTUS as SERVANTS of the Constitution. They don't exist to create law.

The Constitution's basic function is to protect minorities from the majority opinions of the moment. That's the whole reason we have Separation of Powers, State's Rights/Federalism, limited Enumerated Powers, the Bill of Rights, and the 9th and 10th Amendments.

If the Constitution is interpreted as a 'living document' as you and most liberals believe, that means--by definition--it would change with the whims of the majority opinion of the day. It wouldn't be performing it's fundamental purpose of protecting the minority.

If the Constitution was easy to amend, it wouldn't provide the protections that were intended. The Constitution is purposefully vague in many areas. That's the beauty of it. Our Founder's desired less laws, more freedom, and a minimal Federal government.

NOTE: These are my personal opinions. Everyone has the right--and I'd say duty--to try to find fault. That's the only way to understand your freedoms better.

[UT alum]

15 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

SCOTUS is there to serve the Constitution, and the people that fall under it's law. It's not there--as some would believe--for judicial review as you're defining like a power grab. Marbury vs. Madison basically established that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and SCOTUS HAS to follow it.

Instead of thinking of SCOTUS as being the arbiter of law, think of SCOTUS as HAVING to use the Constitution as originally intended to verify legality of an existing or proposed law. In other words, think of SCOTUS as SERVANTS of the Constitution. They don't exist to create law.

The Constitution's basic function is to protect minorities from the majority opinions of the moment. That's the whole reason we have Separation of Powers, States Rights/Federalism, limited Enumerated Powers, the Bill of Rights, and the 9th and 10th Amendments.

If the Constitution is interpreted as a 'living document' as you and most liberals believe, that means--by definition--it would change with the whims of the majority opinion of the day. It wouldn't be performing it's fundamental purpose of protecting the minority.

If the Constitution was easy to amend, it wouldn't provide the protections that were intended. The Constitution is purposefully vague in many areas. That's the beauty of it. Our Founder's desired less laws, more freedom, and a minimal Federal government.

NOTE: These are my personal opinions. Everyone has the right--and I'd say duty--to try to find fault. That's the only way to understand your freedoms better.

So you’re saying Brown vs. Board of Education was an encroachment on the 14th amendment? Separate but equal was what was legislated. 

 

[UT alum]

24 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

SCOTUS is there to serve the Constitution, and the people that fall under it's law. It's not there--as some would believe--for judicial review as you're defining like a power grab. Marbury vs. Madison basically established that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and SCOTUS HAS to follow it.

Instead of thinking of SCOTUS as being the arbiter of law, think of SCOTUS as HAVING to use the Constitution as originally intended to verify legality of an existing or proposed law. In other words, think of SCOTUS as SERVANTS of the Constitution. They don't exist to create law.

The Constitution's basic function is to protect minorities from the majority opinions of the moment. That's the whole reason we have Separation of Powers, States Rights/Federalism, limited Enumerated Powers, the Bill of Rights, and the 9th and 10th Amendments.

If the Constitution is interpreted as a 'living document' as you and most liberals believe, that means--by definition--it would change with the whims of the majority opinion of the day. It wouldn't be performing it's fundamental purpose of protecting the minority.

If the Constitution was easy to amend, it wouldn't provide the protections that were intended. The Constitution is purposefully vague in many areas. That's the beauty of it. Our Founder's desired less laws, more freedom, and a minimal Federal government.

NOTE: These are my personal opinions. Everyone has the right--and I'd say duty--to try to find fault. That's the only way to understand your freedoms better.

Legislated by the states after Plessy vs. Ferguson.

[UT alum]

26 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

SCOTUS is there to serve the Constitution, and the people that fall under it's law. It's not there--as some would believe--for judicial review as you're defining like a power grab. Marbury vs. Madison basically established that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and SCOTUS HAS to follow it. Whether they think they know better or not.

Instead of thinking of SCOTUS as being the arbiter of law, think of SCOTUS as HAVING to use the Constitution as originally intended to verify legality of an existing or proposed law. In other words, think of SCOTUS as SERVANTS of the Constitution. They don't exist to create law.

The Constitution's basic function is to protect minorities from the majority opinions of the moment. That's the whole reason we have Separation of Powers, State's Rights/Federalism, limited Enumerated Powers, the Bill of Rights, and the 9th and 10th Amendments.

If the Constitution is interpreted as a 'living document' as you and most liberals believe, that means--by definition--it would change with the whims of the majority opinion of the day. It wouldn't be performing it's fundamental purpose of protecting the minority.

If the Constitution was easy to amend, it wouldn't provide the protections that were intended. The Constitution is purposefully vague in many areas. That's the beauty of it. Our Founder's desired less laws, more freedom, and a minimal Federal government.

NOTE: These are my personal opinions. Everyone has the right--and I'd say duty--to try to find fault. That's the only way to understand your freedoms better.

Actually,Plessy upheld Jim Crow.

[OlDawg]

7 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Actually,Plessy upheld Jim Crow.

You're fine. I'm following. But, I have to get to making Mama supper here in a sec, so I'll make this one quick. SCOTUS followed original intent by protecting the minority and affirming equal protections. Brown followed the 14th, and reneged Plessy. Not all originalism interpretations favor what most consider 'conservative' tendencies. If interpreted using originalism without judicial bias, I'd argue the Constitution is actually a very liberal document. It provides and protects rights. It doesn't limit them.

[baddog]

Our Constitution has made this the greatest country in the history of the world. Why anyone would suggest that it’s somehow outdated or simply a piece of paper, as Obama would say, and needs to be changed for “today’s” world, don’t really know what their talking about and need to tell me which country has it better.

[OlDawg]

40 minutes ago, baddog said:

Our Constitution has made this the greatest country in the history of the world. Why anyone would suggest that it’s somehow outdated or simply a piece of paper, as Obama would say, and needs to be changed for “today’s” world, don’t really know what their talking about and need to tell me which country has it better.

Obama and his ilk follow the liberal mantra of believing you should “legislate from the bench”, which is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of Marbury vs Madison and the Constitution.

That’s why—IMHO—liberals are having such a hard time with the current SCOTUS. They got used to decades of the courts doing their dirty work.

What they miss is, the current Chief Justice is one of the biggest offenders of Marbury vs Madison. While he preaches “judicial restraint”, he created the legal justification for Obamacare out of whole cloth & bailing wire.