Jedi Council Forums - The Nature of the American Constitution. Revised for your Comfort.

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: The Nature of the American Constitution. Revised for your Comfort.
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 10/14/05 5:39pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the American Constitution. Revised for your Comfort.
	DARTH-SHREDDER posted: Ok, but since the constitution doesn't talk about gay marriage, how can that decision be made? It can't be made purely from the consitution, and that just proved my point. You say we should follow the coinstitution's laws as they were written, but if the constitution doesn't talk about something, what do you do? You can't follow the constitution strictly, because new things happen, that the constitution as it was didn't know of, and that constitution wasn't built for these new issues. It's really very simple. The default state is that the government has absolutely no powers whatsoever. Any powers it receives are granted to it from the People. Those powers are explicitly granted through the Constitution. So, what do you do if the Constitution doesn't say anything about a topic? It've very simple, if the Constitution doesn't say anything, then the government lacks any power in that area. If the government lacks power, then any actions that it takes in that area are unconstitutional (as they are not authorized by the Constitution). If new things happen and the government needs a new power, then we have the amendment process as outlined in Article V. Otherwise, it's quite simply none of the government's business. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
ShaneP Title: Lucasfilm Projects Gremlin(Manager ) Registered: Mar '01	Date Posted: 10/14/05 6:00pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the American Constitution. Revised for your Comfort. - Date Edited: 10/14/05 6:08pm (2 edits total) Edited By: ShaneP
	OWM Strict construction is a valid interpretation, but the problem is about what it DOESN'T say. BS. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Did you miss it? Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And again..... Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -----signature----- Keep Your Words Sweet. You May Have To Eat Them.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DARTH-SHREDDER Registered: May '05	Date Posted: 10/14/05 6:01pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the American Constitution. Revised for your Comfort.
	Kimball_Kinnison posted: DARTH-SHREDDER posted: Ok, but since the constitution doesn't talk about gay marriage, how can that decision be made? It can't be made purely from the consitution, and that just proved my point. You say we should follow the coinstitution's laws as they were written, but if the constitution doesn't talk about something, what do you do? You can't follow the constitution strictly, because new things happen, that the constitution as it was didn't know of, and that constitution wasn't built for these new issues. It's really very simple. The default state is that the government has absolutely no powers whatsoever. Any powers it receives are granted to it from the People. Those powers are explicitly granted through the Constitution. So, what do you do if the Constitution doesn't say anything about a topic? It've very simple, if the Constitution doesn't say anything, then the government lacks any power in that area. If the government lacks power, then any actions that it takes in that area are unconstitutional (as they are not authorized by the Constitution). If new things happen and the government needs a new power, then we have the amendment process as outlined in Article V. Otherwise, it's quite simply none of the government's business. Kimball Kinnison So to directly apply this to gay marriage, what power does the government specifically lack pertaining to marriage? -----signature----- The bible is a pathway to many beliefs some consider to be ignorant. Only a sith deals in absolutes....or a conservative. I have a big problem with religion and rednecks. Proud tree hugger. \m/ Rock on/
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 10/14/05 8:29pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the American Constitution. Revised for your Comfort.
	DARTH-SHREDDER posted: So to directly apply this to gay marriage, what power does the government specifically lack pertaining to marriage? On the federal level, the government has almost nothing to do with marriage. The authority for marriage is a state-level issue, and as such is governed by state constitutions, not the federal Constitution. That is one of the key problems that many liberals have when it comes to constitutional issues. Ours is a federalist system of government, with governmental responsibilities and powers divided between a central, federal government and state governments (as well as local governments). Each government has its own responsibilities separate from the other types of government. For example, there's the matter of education. The federal government is not actually given any authority over education in the Constitution. Instead, it uses loopholes created by the Supreme Court to control in that area. It takes excessive money in taxes, and then offers that money back to the states in exchange for implementing certain programs. The same methods are used for other issues such as the drinking age (states that don't set the drinking age at 21 lose highway funding). Too many people think that the government needs to solve all the problems in society, and when they look to "government", they think only of the federal government (because it has the deepest pockets). if the federal government actually limited itself to its proper sphere of influence (i.e. stayed out of state responsibilities), then we would have lower federal taxes, and the states would be able to better adapt their programs to the needs and wishes of their citizens, rather than trying to fit everything into a one-size-fits-all "solution". Go and read the US Constitution carefully. Under the 10th Amendment, anything not delegated to the federal government, is left to the States (unless it is explicitly forbidden to them). Similarly, read your local state constitution to see what powers are specifically given to your state, and what are denied to it. If a power is not mentioned, the State does not have it. The concept is really that simple. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Obi-Wan McCartney Registered: Aug '99	Date Posted: 10/15/05 12:44am Subject: RE: The Nature of the American Constitution. Revised for your Comfort.
	Shane P, that is ridiculous. With that kind of logic, I could just repost the 9th amenmdnet a million times. Again, the 5th amendment says no cruel and unusual punishment. Does this mean that teh states get to interpret what that means? What constitutes cruel and unusual punishment? No, the federal judiciary is assigned the task fo figuring that one out. Even if the legislature says cruficying someone is not cruel and unusual, the Supreme Court would have the power to say that IT IS. Try again my friend. -----signature----- God Bless J-Rod's Wife! Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999! America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Vaderize03 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Oct '99	Date Posted: 10/15/05 6:58am Subject: RE: The Nature of the American Constitution. Revised for your Comfort. - Date Edited: 10/15/05 7:03am (2 edits total) Edited By: Vaderize03
	ShaneP- Vaderize, oh so you think the Supreme Court is overreaching when they come down with a decision against your whims? Can't have it both ways. You wanted an activist judiciary. Funny you accuse me of this yet it seems that only liberals can have an "activist" judiciary. That claim is utter nonsense. When the courts refused to be "activist" in the Terry Schiavo case, there were calls from republicans for impeachment of judges. And you are accusing me of wanting it both ways? How is overturning Roe and Lawrence not activist? Because it is "righting a great wrong". I don't think so. In reality, it is conservatives who want it both ways. There may be lack of consistency on both sides, but I give greater blame to the right on this one. I still want to know why democrats here have come to love legislating from the most undemocratic branch of the national government. The farcical and untrue nature of the above statement is res ipsa loquitor, and requires no response from me. Wow, thanks for reading that and coming away not having understood a word of it. Nothing to do with "God", everything to do with the authority of the Constitution, not what men think of it. You clearly stated that rights come from a higher power, and as such, cannot be invented or taken away by men, only recognized. I simply stated that such an argument ignores the fact that many people believe it to be a) untrue and b) a violation of principle. Rights are what we say they are, and nothing more. There are no universal "human rights", they are a human construct. If the sun blew up tomorrow and wiped out the human race, so would human rights disappear. It's not open to interpretation. What it says is all there is. Decades of jurisprudence and legal scholarship disagree with you. I suppose you are right and they are all wrong ? You don't like what it says? Amend it democratically. That's the self-correcting mechanism. You don't have to for every little thing. The constitution provides for the recognition of change over time with things like the Ninth Amendment without needing to amend for every little thing. Sheesh, you don't need to call a constitutional convention every time you want to recognize the fact that things change. The constitution already has built in protections against that. When did democrats become undemocratic? I'll keep that in mind the next time the GOP goes about restructuring voting districts to guarantee Congressional seats. Peace, V-03 -----signature----- "Bring your pretty face to my axe....." B-O-H-I-C-A !! (that was funny DM!) "I'm what Willis was talking about"
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DARTH-SHREDDER Registered: May '05	Date Posted: 10/15/05 10:47am Subject: RE: The Nature of the American Constitution. Revised for your Comfort. - Date Edited: 10/15/05 11:52am (2 edits total) Edited By: DARTH-SHREDDER
	Kimball_Kinnison posted: On the federal level, the government has almost nothing to do with marriage. The authority for marriage is a state-level issue, and as such is governed by state constitutions, not the federal Constitution. This why you can't apply the constitution strictly to our day ang age. Back then the concept of gay marriage didn't exist, so they didn't know that leaving marriage up the states could turn out silly. Different states having different marriage laws is stupid, because that has nothing to do with the individual people in that particular state, it's just a human rights issue, something that should be the same for all states. But see they didn't know this when they wrote the constitution. There was no gay marriage. So I ask again, how can you apply the constitution strictly to our day and age? -----signature----- The bible is a pathway to many beliefs some consider to be ignorant. Only a sith deals in absolutes....or a conservative. I have a big problem with religion and rednecks. Proud tree hugger. \m/ Rock on/
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
ShaneP Title: Lucasfilm Projects Gremlin(Manager ) Registered: Mar '01	Date Posted: 10/15/05 12:31pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the American Constitution. Revised for your Comfort. - Date Edited: 10/15/05 12:51pm (5 edits total) Edited By: ShaneP
	Vaderize03 Funny you accuse me of this yet it seems that only liberals can have an "activist" judiciary. That claim is utter nonsense. You want it both ways: You want an activist judiciary when it works in your favour and hands down rulings you agree with. But then when they don't: "Why it's outrageous!" Vaderize 03 You don't have to[amend it] for every little thing. The constitution provides for the recognition of change over time with things like the Ninth Amendment without needing to amend for every little thing. No, the 10th amendment clearly states that those powers not clearly delegated to the national government and not denied to the states are reserved for the states and the people. The judiciary had no business creating law(Roe v Wade). Do you think only conservatives think Roe is bad law? Do you? Some common sense liberals recognize the danger in creating an activist judiciary that may one day be activist against them. And notice how I said bad law. That's what it is. It's also unconstitutional. Vaderize03 Sheesh, you don't need to call a constitutional convention every time you want to recognize the fact that things change. The constitution already has built in protections against that. Who said anything about a convention? I'm talking about Congress amending the constitution. Don't dodge because you don't want to deal with the clear violation of the constitution by activist judges and the fact you support that most undemocratic branch in their usurpation of power. When did democrats become undemocratic? Vaderize03 I'll keep that in mind the next time the GOP goes about restructuring voting districts to guarantee Congressional seats. "The GOP". So, the party did it? Or did a elected legislature do it? You want to talk in another thread about the dangers of politcal parties and the damge they've done, great. Until then... -----signature----- Keep Your Words Sweet. You May Have To Eat Them.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jabbadabbado Title: Senate Floor Manager Registered: Mar '99	Date Posted: 10/15/05 1:28pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the American Constitution. Revised for your Comfort.
	"Activist court" is a cliche with no meaning. The Supreme Court has been "activist" from day 1 in the sense of taking on the power to review the constitutionality of legislation and promulgate rules and tests for what hoops government needs to jump through to pass constitutional muster. -----signature----- "As a Chicago sports fan you get used to disappointment."
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Vaderize03 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Oct '99	Date Posted: 10/15/05 1:33pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the American Constitution. Revised for your Comfort.
	You want it both ways: You want an activist judiciary when it works in your favour and hands down rulings you agree with. But then when they don't: "Why it's outrageous!" Uh no, that's what I said conservatives wanted. I then went on to provide a perfect example with the Terry Schiavo incident? Did you read my post? No, the 10th amendment clearly states that those powers not clearly delegated to the national government and not denied to the states are reserved for the states and the people. The judiciary had no business creating law(Roe v Wade). That's a matter of opinion. The Ninth Amendment provided part of the grounding for the idea of a right to privacy in Roe; no "law" was created, it was "found"; however, conservatives have done a good job of using the concept of "activism" as a rallying cry on this issue. This is a perfect example of what we are both dancing around: the court issuing a ruling one disagrees with, and then crying "activism!". The Roe decision had both merits and detractors, but I do not find the Tenth Amendment controlling here, not over the Ninth and the Fourteenth. Do you think only conservatives think Roe is bad law? Do you? Some common sense liberals recognize the danger in creating an activist judiciary that may one day be activist against them. And notice how I said bad law. That's what it is. It's also unconstitutional. Your opinion. Bad law? Perhaps-but so was Bush v Gore-where were the cries of activism there from the conservative side? A valid question I have yet to see answered by any conservative anywhere. Who said anything about a convention? I'm talking about Congress amending the constitution. Don't dodge because you don't want to deal with the clear violation of the constitution by activist judges and the fact you support that most undemocratic branch in their usurpation of power. Please don't put words in my mouth. I've spelled out my positions very clearly, and the fact that you disagree with them does not make me "wrong", or supportive of illegal judicial "activism". The fact is that we both support activism to some degree, me liberal, you, conservative. You seem to live under this idea that only liberals can legislate from the bench, which is exactly what the agenda conservatives hope to enact with a remade federal judiciary entails. So much for the legislatures, eh? Whose being undemocratic and usurping power, when it really comes down to it? By the way, any amendment the Congress passes would have be ratified by the states, would it not? "The GOP". So, the party did it? Or did a elected legislature do it? You want to talk in another thread about the dangers of politcal parties and the damge they've done, great. Until then... I was referring to a specific example in Texas as a counter-argument to your ridiculous claim. I notice that you simply expressed personal irritation and refused to refute it. Perhaps because you can't?...... Peace, V-03 -----signature----- "Bring your pretty face to my axe....." B-O-H-I-C-A !! (that was funny DM!) "I'm what Willis was talking about"
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 10/15/05 4:15pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the American Constitution. Revised for your Comfort.
	DARTH-SHREDDER posted: This why you can't apply the constitution strictly to our day ang age. Back then the concept of gay marriage didn't exist, so they didn't know that leaving marriage up the states could turn out silly. Different states having different marriage laws is stupid, because that has nothing to do with the individual people in that particular state, it's just a human rights issue, something that should be the same for all states. But see they didn't know this when they wrote the constitution. There was no gay marriage. So I ask again, how can you apply the constitution strictly to our day and age? What do you mean by this? Marriage isn't a federal issue. It's a states issue. In that, it is no different than matters such as police, fire, and rescue policies, or education programs (the federal government actually lacks authority to set education programs, and instead uses a loophole of offering conditional funding to the states for education). Does the Constitution need to dictate whether fire departments will be professional, contract, or volunteer? No. That sort of thing is left to the individual states (and/or local governments) to decide. Marriage (and similar matters) fall into the same category. That's part of the basic concept of separation of powers. The Constitution creates both a horizontal separation (between the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary) and a vertical separation of powers (between the federal and state governments). Some areas, such as national defense, diplomacy, and interstate commerce (note: not all commerce, just commerce between the states and/or involving foreign nations), and so forth are federal matters. Those are the more outward-looking (dealing with other nations) matters. For the more inward-looking matters, the states have responsibility (such as in education, public safety/police/fire/etc, vital statitics (including birth, death, and marriage records), and social programs). The states share their responsibilities with the local governments according to their state constitutions. This is done for a reason. The states are closer to the people, and so they are better able to respond the the needs of their citizens. The federal government, on the other hand, is there to protect the nation as a whole, and provide a united front in dealing with other nations. What you suggest undermines the entire foundation of our government, and would make the states nothing more than branches of the federal government, as opposed to distinct political units of their own with their own responsibilities and powers. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
ShaneP Title: Lucasfilm Projects Gremlin(Manager ) Registered: Mar '01	Date Posted: 10/15/05 4:25pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the American Constitution. Revised for your Comfort. - Date Edited: 10/15/05 4:33pm (1 edits total) Edited By: ShaneP
	Me "The GOP". So, the party did it? Or did a elected legislature do it? You want to talk in another thread about the dangers of political parties and the damage they've done, great. Until then... Vaderize03 I was referring to a specific example in Texas as a counter-argument to your ridiculous claim. I notice that you simply expressed personal irritation and refused to refute it. Perhaps because you can't?...... But see, there is no counter-argument because I did refute it. The changes were made by a democratically-elected legislature! What don't you get? Me You want it both ways: You want an activist judiciary when it works in your favour and hands down rulings you agree with. But then when they don't: "Why it's outrageous!" Vaderize03 Uh no, that's what I said conservatives wanted. I then went on to provide a perfect example with the Terry Schiavo incident? Did you read my post? Yeah, I did. And I also read your numerous posts calling for a flexible interpretation open to the "changes in society". Then, you turned right around and railed against the activism of the Supremes in 2000. See the double standard? A growing conservative activism is part of the "changes in society" you spoke of. They were merely reflecting those changes. See the monster that's been created? Me No, the 10th amendment clearly states that those powers not clearly delegated to the national government and not denied to the states are reserved for the states and the people. The judiciary had no business creating law(Roe v Wade). Vaderize03 That's a matter of opinion. The Ninth Amendment provided part of the grounding for the idea of a right to privacy in Roe; no "law" was created, it was "found"; Vaderize03 however, conservatives have done a good job of using the concept of "activism" as a rallying cry on this issue. This is a perfect example of what we are both dancing around: the court issuing a ruling one disagrees with, and then crying "activism!". The Roe decision had both merits and detractors, but I do not find the Tenth Amendment controlling here, not over the Ninth and the Fourteenth. False argument. I made it quite clear that the supremes in Bush vs. Gore was activist. Me Do you think only conservatives think Roe is bad law? Do you? Some common sense liberals recognize the danger in creating an activist judiciary that may one day be activist against them. And notice how I said bad law. That's what it is. It's also unconstitutional. Vaderize03 Your opinion. Bad law? Perhaps-but so was Bush v Gore- Thanks for entertaining the posibbility that Roe is bad law. And Bush v Gore was overreaching. The courts have too much power I'm telling you. What have we been arguing about? But you still didn't answer my question: Do you think only conservatives think Roe set a bad precedent and was bad law? Me Who said anything about a convention? I'm talking about Congress amending the constitution. Don't dodge because you don't want to deal with the clear violation of the constitution by activist judges and the fact you support that most undemocratic branch in their usurpation of power. Vaderize03 Please don't put words in my mouth. I've spelled out my positions very clearly, and the fact that you disagree with them does not make me "wrong", or supportive of illegal judicial "activism". The fact is that we both support activism to some degree, me liberal, you, conservative. You seem to live under this idea that only liberals can legislate from the bench, which is exactly what the agenda conservatives hope to enact with a remade federal judiciary entails. A strict interpretation is the exact opposite of activism. What you're railing against is activism. Strict constructionism does not allow it because it takes the words of the constitution literally. -----signature----- Keep Your Words Sweet. You May Have To Eat Them.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DARTH-SHREDDER Registered: May '05	Date Posted: 10/15/05 4:42pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the American Constitution. Revised for your Comfort. - Date Edited: 10/15/05 5:12pm (4 edits total) Edited By: DARTH-SHREDDER
	Kimball_kinnison posted: What do you mean by this? Marriage isn't a federal issue. It's a states issue. In that, it is no different than matters such as police, fire, and rescue policies, or education programs (the federal government actually lacks authority to set education programs, and instead uses a loophole of offering conditional funding to the states for education). Does the Constitution need to dictate whether fire departments will be professional, contract, or volunteer? No. That sort of thing is left to the individual states (and/or local governments) to decide. Marriage (and similar matters) fall into the same category. You don't understand my point. My point is that it shouldn't be in the same catagory as police and firemen, because those issues deal with the individual state and its people. But marriage is simply a human rights issue. Do you think some states should outlaw killing and others make it legal? No, because that has nothing to do with the state's individual people, it's something that needs one solution. If marriage was a state issue, then different states would have different types of marriage, which should be, as marriage should be the same for all citizens. It's not like New York's citizens would need gay marriage and Geogia's citizen's wouldn't. Simply, individual states make individual laws because different states have different needs, but all citizens should are the same when it comes to marriage and their needs. Kimball_Kinnison posted: This is done for a reason. The states are closer to the people, and so they are better able to respond the the needs of their citizens. The federal government, on the other hand, is there to protect the nation as a whole, and provide a united front in dealing with other nations. Again, the needs of the citizens are the same in all states when it comes to marriage. It's not something that is better for some citizens. Laws that should be made just by the states should be laws where the individual needs of the state differ, like the police force, because some states have different types of crime done in different ways. Kimball_Kinnison posted: What you suggest undermines the entire foundation of our government, and would make the states nothing more than branches of the federal government, as opposed to distinct political units of their own with their own responsibilities and powers. All I'm suggesting is that human rights be the same for all people in America, which, actually upholds the entire foundation of our government. "We hold these truths to be self evidnet, that all men are created equal..." -----signature----- The bible is a pathway to many beliefs some consider to be ignorant. Only a sith deals in absolutes....or a conservative. I have a big problem with religion and rednecks. Proud tree hugger. \m/ Rock on/
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
ShaneP Title: Lucasfilm Projects Gremlin(Manager ) Registered: Mar '01	Date Posted: 10/15/05 4:48pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the American Constitution. Revised for your Comfort.
	Darth Shredder actually upholds the entire foundation of our government. "We hold these truths to be self'evidnet, that all men are created equal..." Too bad that's not from the constitution!. Declaration of Independence, dude. Great document, but it's not the same thing as the constitution. -----signature----- Keep Your Words Sweet. You May Have To Eat Them.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DARTH-SHREDDER Registered: May '05	Date Posted: 10/15/05 5:14pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the American Constitution. Revised for your Comfort. - Date Edited: 10/15/05 5:14pm (1 edits total) Edited By: DARTH-SHREDDER
	I know it's not form the constitution. It doens't matter, it's still from the Declaration of Independence, which our country was also based on. Also, I hope you're not suggesting that all humans weren't created equal, because you implied that. -----signature----- The bible is a pathway to many beliefs some consider to be ignorant. Only a sith deals in absolutes....or a conservative. I have a big problem with religion and rednecks. Proud tree hugger. \m/ Rock on/
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 » - Previous | Next | Reload