Think Rand Paul is an intellectual lightweight?

[Dachs]

But only Cheezy responded. As I say, I don't really know much about the topic, so I'm willing to be correct, but if American common law is much like English common law, it would seem to be the case that the SCOTUS decision represents the legally correct reading of the Constitution. Is there something that I'm missing?

Nope, you're right.

I imagine his response would be something along the lines of whining about how the Supreme Court itself isn't legitimate or that its powers are unconstitutional or some similar tripe.

I wonder what our loonies would do if our Constitution was as much a mess as yours.

 

[JollyRoger]

Nope, its just the normal tenth amendment

Which, for the record, trumps any SCOTUS decision.

Absolutely false. If you don't want to bother handwriting the Constitution 50 times (have you even done it once yet? or even read it from start to finish once yet?), at least read a handful oif Supreme Court decisions from the past year. I seriously doubt the 10th Amendment trumps a Supreme Court decision over the the technical meaning a clause in the federal bankruptcy statute.

 

[G-Max]

Alaska can vote tyranny on itself and be very fine in doing so; what I am saying is they should not be given that privilege.

In other words "to hell with social contract theory, I'm going to force freedom and tolerance down your throats"?

I suppose that the next step is to force the Girl Scouts to start accepting boys as members...

State governments play fast and loose with the Bill of Rights when it serves their interest to do so i.e. slavery.

So does Congress. What's your point?

Don't be so condescending. Women and blacks didn't have the right to vote until they were granted that right by the Federal government. Of course the same hand that giveth tooketh away to begin with

Nonsense. Women were casting votes as far back as 1870, and free blacks had been allowed to vote since... like... ever.

That's really more a product on developed puritan sensibilities than any particular abuse of power. The point stands that Congress was responsible for more liberations than State governments have ever been.

Really? I'm pretty sure that the Constitutional amendments in question had to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Meanwhile, Congress has been responsible for more loss of liberty than all 50 state governments put together.

It was so ambiguous, in fact, that a war had to be fought over it.

LOLWUT? South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860. The war began on April 12, 1861. This was a FOUR-MONTH gap during which secession was apparently legal. Furthermore, the war started not because the Union declared secession illegal, but because the Confederacy attacked Fort Sumter without provocation.

Is this meant to be a joke or do you really have absolutely no idea how common law works?

The Constitution trumps "common law".

It's still not really "cheating" if the legal system isn't specifically designed to prevent it. Given how often stuff like that occurs, it's hard to make that argument unless so much of what Congress does is also "cheating."

But the system is specifically designed to prevent it, and most of what Congress does is unconstitutional. Constitutionalists have been saying this for decades!

Nah, it's just your interpretation of the Tenth Amendment.

Which, curiously, is the only interpretation that makes any kind of sense. It's not a poem or some abstract painting.

Thankfully, you're not in a position of power, and a bunch of guys in blue uniforms with guns made it inescapably clear what the valid interpretation was a hundred fifty years ago.

No, what they made clear was that you can't attack a U.S. military installation without expecting to be fired upon in return.

No, the ruling of the Supreme Courts on amendments trump what is written there.

Sorry, but no. The SCOTUS does not have the power to decide what the Constitution says, contrary to what they and your 4th grade teacher like to claim.

If you don't want to bother handwriting the Constitution 50 times (have you even done it once yet? or even read it from start to finish once yet?), at least read a handful oif Supreme Court decisions from the past year.

The Supreme Court is no authority on what the Constitution says. Ultimately, that's the duty of the state governments, or at least it was until the 17th Amendment came along...

 

[Dachs]

Which, curiously, is the only interpretation that makes any kind of sense. It's not a poem or some abstract painting.

I'm sorry, I just have this noise in my head when I read this that just goes "HEADCANON! HEADCANON!" over and over again. I wonder what it means.

No, what they made clear was that you can't attack a U.S. military installation without expecting to be fired upon in return.

I don't think you can extricate one from the other.

 

[useless]

In what universe does retaliating against an aggressor count as starting a war? The agressor in this case being the south.

The claim that the south didn't start it is as valid as the claim that the polish started the 2nd by attacking germany.

 

[Ajidica]

Sorry, but no. The SCOTUS does not have the power to decide what the Constitution says, contrary to what they and your 4th grade teacher like to claim.

I do love how over 200 years of Supreme Court precedent following Marbury can get thrown out of the window because of what you think my 4th grade teacher taught me.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

In other words "to hell with social contract theory, I'm going to force freedom and tolerance down your throats"?

I suppose that the next step is to force the Girl Scouts to start accepting boys as members...

Boys can join the GSA.

Nonsense. Women were casting votes as far back as 1870,

Yeah, in Utah, where they had no risk of overturning such a heavily paternalistic society as the Mormon Church.

The Soviet Union gave women the right to vote before our country did.

and free blacks had been allowed to vote since... like... ever.

Since 1870.

Really? I'm pretty sure that the Constitutional amendments in question had to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Meanwhile, Congress has been responsible for more loss of liberty than all 50 state governments put together.

That's why the federal government had to go in an forcibly integrate school districts, pass a second law abrogating state laws that had encroached upon a right it had already given out in the Constitution a century earlier, and explicitly ban discrimination based on both race and sex, right?

LOLWUT? South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860. The war began on April 12, 1861. This was a FOUR-MONTH gap during which secession was apparently legal. Furthermore, the war started not because the Union declared secession illegal, but because the Confederacy attacked Fort Sumter without provocation.

There was no Supreme Court ruling in that period to formally declare it as such. There was after the war. The Supreme Court saying it was unconstitutional was a statement of what the constitution was meant to mean with regards to the subject, thus, even though the Rebel states were ignorant of the constitutionality or lack thereof, they nonetheless breached it by seceding. There was no law passed, so they weren't breaking the law, they were violating the constitution in ignorance of their encroachment. That's a big reason why the SC made it rather explicit after the war, so that this issue could be cleared up.

But the system is specifically designed to prevent it, and most of what Congress does is unconstitutional. Constitutionalists have been saying this for decades!

Is it? Or is it designed to prohibit specifically what is enumerated? You can't say the Constitution should be read implicitly on some things and explicitly on others, depending on what you want it to mean. Either the crafters intended it one way or another, if they didn't, then they would have said so. Explicitly, not implicitly.

 

[Traitorfish]

The Constitution trumps "common law".

I thought the constitution was a common law document? Just because it's all written down in on place doesn't make it a civil code.

 

[JollyRoger]

The Supreme Court is no authority on what the Constitution says. Ultimately, that's the duty of the state governments, or at least it was until the 17th Amendment came along...

The 17th Amendment just transferred the election of one chamber of one branch from the hands of the state to the hands of the people.

As for the Supreme Court:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution

That is a grant of authority to decide cases presenting Constitutional questions. Now Congress could, under some situations, theoretically strip the Supreme Court of power to decide an issue, but they would still need to leave it in the hands of an inferior court

I invite you or one of your fellow Constitutional scholars to find a similar clause granting the states such a power (I know this is unfair, because it will require you to actually read the entire Constitution for your search to come up empty - something of a burden you all have perhaps not subjected yourselves to yet). The closest thing you will find is the state's role in the Amendment process.

 

[Cutlass]

LOL. Our debt problems go all the way back to FDR, but started getting especially bad once Nixon took us off the Gold Standard. Dubya was just continuing the practices of his predecessors, and so is Obama.

The US had no debt problem before Reagan created it. Though JFK-LBJ did make the mistake of cutting taxes, which was on net harmful for the American future and economy.

WRONG!

There's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting secession; as such, it is one of the powers that is reserved to the states by Amendment X.

There's nothing making it legal either.

Did you forget the part about opposing bailouts and subsidies? You know, the same ones that Republicans have such a collective boner for?

So he wants to destroy capitalism once and for all?

No, dude. "Corporate welfare" is the gift. "Ending corporate welfare" is the opposite of a big-business gift.

Deregulation is corporate welfare.

 

[G-Max]

I'm sorry, I just have this noise in my head when I read this that just goes "HEADCANON! HEADCANON!" over and over again. I wonder what it means.

I wonder the same.

I do love how over 200 years of Supreme Court precedent following Marbury can get thrown out of the window because of what you think my 4th grade teacher taught me.

More like "because of what the Constitution and half of the Founding Fathers say", but close enough.

Boys can join the GSA.

Yeah, that was my point: progressives like to force their values of tolerance on everyone else, even to the point of total insanity.

Yeah, in Utah, where they had no risk of overturning such a heavily paternalistic society as the Mormon Church.

I was actually talking about Wyoming, but whatever.

The Soviet Union gave women the right to vote before our country did.

Lawl. Women in the US were voting almost half a century before the Soviet Union even existed. They did, however, allow women in their military before we did.

Since 1870.

Yeah, states that prohibited blacks from voting decided to ratify the 15th amendment.

That's why the federal government had to go in an forcibly integrate school districts, pass a second law abrogating state laws that had encroached upon a right it had already given out in the Constitution a century earlier, and explicitly ban discrimination based on both race and sex, right?

Integrating school districts has nothing to do with liberty, prohibiting private individuals from discriminating is a loss of liberty, and you'll need to be more specific on #2.

There was no Supreme Court ruling in that period to formally declare it as such. There was after the war. The Supreme Court saying it was unconstitutional was a statement of what the constitution was meant to mean with regards to the subject, thus, even though the Rebel states were ignorant of the constitutionality or lack thereof, they nonetheless breached it by seceding. There was no law passed, so they weren't breaking the law, they were violating the constitution in ignorance of their encroachment. That's a big reason why the SC made it rather explicit after the war, so that this issue could be cleared up.

SCOTUS decisions don't count for jack.

Is it? Or is it designed to prohibit specifically what is enumerated?

What the hell are you talking about?

You can't say the Constitution should be read implicitly on some things and explicitly on others, depending on what you want it to mean. Either the crafters intended it one way or another, if they didn't, then they would have said so. Explicitly, not implicitly.

The Constitution is 100% explicit. It means what it says and it says what it means. Big-government progressives, not states rights' advocates, are the ones who like to take the Constitution literally some of the time and loosely at other times depending on whether it fits with their agenda or not.

The 17th Amendment just transferred the election of one chamber of one branch from the hands of the state to the hands of the people.

EXACTLY, and in the process of doing so, it stripped the state governments of their ability to slap Congress around every time it did something Unconstitutional

As for the Supreme Court:

That is a grant of authority to decide cases presenting Constitutional questions.

It is a grant of authority to determine guilt or innocence, and in the case of guilt, to decide punishment. Nothing more.

The US had no debt problem before Reagan created it.

*facepalm*

Our first dangerous debt-to-GDP spike happened under FDR's rule. It dropped and then leveled out after that, and started climbing again in the 1970s. Reagan only made it worse.

Though JFK-LBJ did make the mistake of cutting taxes, which was on net harmful for the American future and economy.

No dude, cutting taxes is good for the economy. It's just not good for the budget.

There's nothing making it legal either.

Except, you know, the Bill of Rights, in particular that last amendment, which says that the states can do anything that the Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid them from doing.

So he wants to destroy capitalism once and for all?

Ending corporate welfare is not the same as destroying capitalism.

Deregulation is corporate welfare.

No. Just no. That's like saying "ending the War on Drugs is the same as expanding Medicare". It's just stupid.

 

[Traitorfish]

So is the constitution a common law document, or a civil code? That seems to be the crux of the issue, but you haven't really made your opinion explicit.

 

[JollyRoger]

The Constitution is 100% explicit. It means what it says and it says what it means.

If you say so:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Congress shall have Power . . . 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.

I It is a grant of authority to determine guilt or innocence, and in the case of guilt, to decide punishment. Nothing more.

How are you even getting that the clause is restricted to criminal law? The clause, er explicity says:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution

 

[Dachs]

So is the constitution a common law document, or a civil code? That seems to be the crux of the issue, but you haven't really made your opinion explicit.

Hahaha, civil codes in the United States. You're funny.

 

[G-Max]

So is the constitution a common law document, or a civil code?

Who cares?

If you say so:

The preamble sets the goals and purposes of the Constitution. It is not part of the list of enumerated powers of Congress.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yeah, that was my point: progressives like to force their values of tolerance on everyone else, even to the point of total insanity.

Its been that way since its creation. Besides, why shouldn't boys be able to join? Why are you so obsessed with segregating people? You think the Congressional Black Caucus should bar all non-Black members as well? Why is separate but equal okay with all you "states' rights" people?

Lawl. Women in the US were voting almost half a century before the Soviet Union even existed. They did, however, allow women in their military before we did.

Russian Constitution of 1918: 1918.

Nineteenth Amendment, 1920.

Yeah, states that prohibited blacks from voting decided to ratify the 15th amendment.

Even if they didn't, their membership in the Union is consent enough that the other 3/4 of the states voting for it can make it law even against their own personal opinions on the subject.

Integrating school districts has nothing to do with liberty, prohibiting private individuals from discriminating is a loss of liberty, and you'll need to be more specific on #2.

This is not a hard concept.

SCOTUS decisions don't count for jack.

That's why they bear the force of law and absolute last word, right?

The Constitution is 100% explicit. It means what it says and it says what it means. Big-government progressives, not states rights' advocates, are the ones who like to take the Constitution literally some of the time and loosely at other times depending on whether it fits with their agenda or not.

I find it incredibly ironic that states' rights advocates who insist on an explicit reading of the Constitution and not an interpretive one are often the same ones who deride Islam so much for being so inflexible and "stuck in the Dark Ages" because of their obsession with explicit readings of their Holy Text and unwillingness to reinterpret it through time.

 

[Traitorfish]

Who cares?

Well, um, you, apparently. Whether or not you'd frame it in those terms.

Hahaha, civil codes in the United States. You're funny.

Well, that's what I thought, but G-Max seems so very certain...

 

[ParkCungHee]

Hahaha, civil codes in the United States. You're funny.

Doesn't Louisiana have one?

 

[Dachs]

Doesn't Louisiana have one?

Nah, Louisiana law is weird. They took parts of the Code Napoleon and even, I think, some Spanish law, and amalgamated it all with standard American common-law nonsense. You can't really say that the state operates with a civil code, but they use a lot of concepts that are associated with civil codes and not with American common law in most cases.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

G-Max's comment about Girl Scouts reminds me of this nutter:

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/21/10469492-lawmaker-radical-girl-scouts-out-to-destroy-american-family-values

Lawmaker: 'Radical' Girl Scouts out to destroy 'American family values'

By NBC News and msnbc.com staff

There's an agenda behind those cookies the Girl Scouts sell, one bent on promoting communism, lesbianism and subverting "traditional American family values," according to an Indiana lawmaker.

That's the reason Rep. Bob Morris, a Republican representing Fort Wayne, insists he won't go along with a resolution meant to honor the Girls Scouts on the organization's 100th anniversary.

Morris owns a chain of nutrition stores, but it's not the fat and sugar in Girl Scout cookies that have him riled up.
"After talking to some well-informed constituents, I did a small amount of Web-based research, and what I found is disturbing," Morris wrote Saturday to Republican House colleagues in a letter obtained by the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette.

Morris alleged that the Girl Scouts of the United States of America and the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts "have entered into a close strategic affiliation with Planned Parenthood," which he claimed is trying to "sexualiz(e) young girls through the Girl Scouts."

Even worse, he wrote, only three of the 50 role models promoted by the Girl Scouts have even "a briefly-mentioned religious background."

"All the rest are feminists, lesbians, or Communists," he wrote.