Dumbest People to Walk the Face of the Earth


#61

I know that the power hungry can see any power in the US Constitution… even though the founders were pretty clear about it limited powers and scope… I have yet to see the worlds ‘implied’ in the constitution… but I can certainly understand how they are ‘needed’ to execute the enumerated… Others are far more … creative than the founders ever intended.

And about that preamble… It is clear that it says that in order to form a more perfect union that the federal was to PROVIDE for the common defense… and PROMOTE the general welfare. Now I would suggest that promoting the general welfare would be something along the lines of what Trump is doing with tariffs… but it isn’t about PROVIDING people with transfered wealth by means of theft at gunpoint…


#62

I disagree with the premise. Fulfilling obligation is not grabbing power. But if the constitution really is the end all for you, why don’t you take issue with the US engaging in war after war without the necessary declaration by congress as the constitution requires?

Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and Bush wiretapped US citizens without a warrant. They both argued the executive branch powers given the circumstances and they both had their usual partisan supporters and detractors.

Today Louisiana Senator John Kennedy told CNN that he will be looking for a Supreme Court nominee that will properly interpret the constitution where it’s not clear, and that’s what it boils down to.


#63

Sense you have been on here… we haven’t managed to engage in anything that Obama and others hadn’t already stuck their noses in… Hence no ‘new’ discussion on the application of our military. With the passage of the AUMF, or Authorization for Use of Military Force after 9/11 congress cedded its power to the executive which we know from the founders is the branch most likely to want to use the military hammer. One can only say… ‘Where is the declaration of war’ so many times before you get hoarse…

The use of our military over the years… particularly after WWII, not unlike the twisting of the constitution that has somehow given Washington near planetary powers over everything, has made our present day extrication of those people stationed around the world… difficult to say the least. Vacuums are quickly filled.

You say that the federal government is doing no more than ‘fulfilling an obligation’ and yet when it intrudes in areas for which it has not authority… that is a power grab… regardless of the intent… regardless of the benevolence. It is no different than the intention of many with our USFP, they think they are doing good… they think that it is a necessary intrusion into world affairs… their is no difference and when we arrive at the place where we are today… it all comes down to unwarranted and unauthorized use of the Federal government… it is a transfer of power that the constitution never allowed for.

Yes… Lincoln actually broke the constitution… While people who advocate that he did it to end slavery … a truly virtuous cause, he in fact did it to keep the union together by force… and negate the consent of the governed. We can talk about the virtues of the result but the fact is, loss of revenue actually trumped the slavery issue.

With respect to Bush’s actions, I think Americans have been totally desensitized to ‘personal liberty’… the left advocates openly for the collective over the individual… they wouldn’t have it any other way. We are so desensitized that we are moving head long into a cashless society strictly because of its ‘convenience’ and regardless of how you feel about Snowden… his revelations barely cause a blip in heart rate of the people of this country. So to is the power slowly taken away from the individual… away from the state… and increasingly cedded by our national governance to unelected world bodies… we over decades have become frogs in a pot of slowly heated water…

Wellllll… ‘interpret’ isn’t a word that I would use with decisions like Plessy v Ferguson… or Kennedy’s tap dance to make Obama’s mandate something other than Obama himself defined it… or indeed the use of the commerce clause to mandate just about every aspect of employment and job creation in the US. It is a step beyond ‘interpretation’ and moves into the realm of ‘invention’…


#64

Easily remedied by Americans abrupt halting support for these actions. As it is, a president (any president) enjoys a spike in popularity when he goes to war, so shallow are the majority of voters. Therefore, congress has no need to do their job in this regard.


#65

The DACA issue was supposed to be voted on and expected to pass in a bipartisan way the second week of September, 2001. Something else came up more pressing that week. I forget what.

Anyway, the parties don’t want the solution to any of it now. They want the wedge issue to campaign on.


#66

Well no, but then I was quoting Republican Senator Kennedy that let that cat out of the bag, not you. It’s nice when you catch a politician, or anybody for that matter, candidly acknowledging that there are elements of the constitution that are not clear. So many people (most especially the partisans on both fringe) see everything in black and white and refuse the reality of nuance.


#67

I have no problem admitting the deviations made by the right with respect to adherence to the constitution… they tended to get their ass handed to them regularly in the 60’s and 70’s… sometimes with good sound judgments and sometimes with yet more nefarious rulings that blessed the 1964 civil rights act. I do wonder about the supreme courts ability to actually uphold the document as written… its not really that ambiguous except in the minds of the ‘clever ones.’ I mean… why on earth did it take the defense of marriage act to kick the supreme court in the ass and force them to cough up what should be basic ‘equal justice’ and say…'if the government recognizes the union of two citizens, it must recognize the union of any two citizens…


#68

Well I do too, polarized and partisan as it is.


#69

It’s not ambiguous and I don’t think that’s the claim. But there are parts of it that the conservative and liberal mind see differently, and it gets interpreted with Chief Justice OPINIONS, there is the written opinion of the majority view and the written dissent of the minority view, ALL OPINIONS. There is no consensus on everything in our constitution. That only exists in the mind of that minority that live in a rigid, black and white world that fear change.


#70

(Quotes are not true…but their intent is accurate.)


#71

Actually a good many OPINIONS seek to read the intent of the words far differently than the supporting documents which underpin the constitution would, if read, would clearly show. Black letter law is not fear of change… it is the law. If you don’t like the law, then it must follow a ‘rigid’ process to be properly changed. The use of Judaical Review, judicial deference and adherence to precedence in ways that are clearly not in keeping with the scope and intent of the Constitution as it lays out the vision of a federal government limited in power.

Hamilton envisioned the judiciary as been the least dangerous of the three branches and yet a hand full of their decisions have altered the direction of the country in ways contrary to the reasonable reading of the constitution in the context of the writers thoughts and positions.

Of course antifederalist saw the ability for the power of the judiciary to subvert the rights of the people and constrain the other two branches particularly with the strong possibility of the judiciary to be co-opted by one or both of the other branches… The Bill of Rights… those rights immune to government interference of the people was the result. And yet erosion of those rights guaranteed by the Constitution have been eroded by the courts every since…

Of course Hamilton who saw the Judiciary as toothless in the face of the other two branches also saw the need for the bill of rights to be a waste of time and paper…

It also seems that some people in the ‘advice and consent’ responsibilities have failed or could care less about the Constitution… or perhaps in their bid to get elected to such high office, they never bothered to read the document… Article VI is pretty damn clear about religious tests…


#72

As the post below yours by @asaratis shows… these principle democrat leaders know FULL WELL what the constitution says and stops cold (when actually implemented) an agenda designed to centralize power in national government and strip the sovereignty of both state and citizen in our Representative Republic. They are powerless because the don’t have the will of the people to pursue the Article V process to change it. Thus, for the last 100 years we have seen activism with very little review of precedence setting legislation and executive order… and ill reasoned opinions coming from the supposed stalwart defender of the constitution…


#73

lol, how many of you ‘woes me, >snivel<, oh noos, >more snivels< , but . . . but . . .>audible cries< . . .but Obama!’ former Paultards have morphed into Trump loving sycophants?


#74

Same old partisan bs of only seeing what liberals do. Both liberals and conservatives interpret according to their ideologies. That’s why there’s so damn many 5-4 decisions. And it’s all opinion. How many religious sects are there in America all reading the same book and concluding diverging dogmas…


#75

The writings of the framers is far to clear for so much bad legislation to pass the smell test. Like I’ve said, the right got its butt handed to them in the 60’s and 70’s but that doesn’t mean that the supreme court gets it right, particularly when you have people like RBG who relies almost exclusively on precedent to base her opinions… the one thing I like about Kavanaugh is to question previous decisions… without people like him, Plessy would still be the law of the land…


#76

It’s OPINION. You have a majority opinion and a minority opinion in every case settled. Most cases in America, tens of thousands a year, never make it to the SCOTUS, I think on average, 80 per year.


#77

Yes and most are settled on what would be considered ‘settled law’ but that doesn’t make it constitutional…


#78

And you’ll never know what is so long as it’s settled by bias opinion whether that’s on the left or right. The SCOTUS is damaged goods, it’s partisan, blatantly, overtly, candidly. And now it’s a fight on both sides to pack it with their own. It’s quite sick.


#79

Case law. It’s what separates us from the animals.

The Supreme Court often decides case law wrought from Congress drafting then enacting Federal criminal/civil codified law statutes that are not narrowly drawn (Judicial Review). And in front of applying them, Federal courts ought to have made plain or clearer connecting constitutionally vulnerable Acts which inexorably gave voice to the legislative purpose—the harms to the social order being addressed—demanding some kind of comeuppance. Quite often what gets lost in translation when invoking “doesn’t makes it [law] constitutional” is that the very system enacting laws and the Judicial Review making sure they are constitutional, are the checks which make sure laws are constitutional. Their interpretation [SCOTUS] doesn’t suffer right or wrong, but instead the legal standard from which to apply the law. What’s great about it, is that it is malleable. It [Consitution] is allowed to be changed, including its amendments. That there are Amendments in the first place is proof of such a thing.


#80

And yet far too many instances of legislative overreach or poor review by the SCOTUS has created massive deviation it the constitution as written (including its amendments… some of which were installed with rather dubious process) and the law that we are compelled to follow. Far more emphasis has been placed on the ‘implied’ powers and far to little on the enumerated. I look to Plessy as a prime example of a court that really did not read the constitution… equal under the law… except when the state wishes to redefine ‘equal’. Then with its reversal, the state couldn’t stand to remove itself from social and cultural development after Brown by twisting the commerce clause in the 1964 Civil Rights act… Clearly if the constitution will not allow government to separate people by any categorical groups (marriage for instance) then it has no right to force people together against their own personal pursuit of happiness…

You are correct in that the constitution and the laws that emanate from it are infinitely malleable… problem is, we aren’t modifying the constitution… we are ignoring it. Congress has the same oath obligations as those members of the Supreme Court and just because congress creates law contrary to the Constitution (precedence) shouldn’t be corrected by the Supreme Court if and when it goes to that body rather than the current practice of judicial deference.