Constitutional terms, do they have meaning, do they have weight?

[Rich2018]

A class action via the common law would fulfil that requirement.

Otherwise, it could be resolved generally via a simple executive order.

What does that mean >?

A class action or an executive order ?

what would be an example of a "common" policy to solve simple poverty ?
What would be an example of a "general" policy to solve simple poverty ?

Can you give a specific example?

 

[danielpalos]

What does that mean >?

A class action or an executive order ?

what would be an example of a "common" policy to solve simple poverty ?
What would be an example of a "general" policy to solve simple poverty ?

Can you give a specific example?

lol. those were examples.

 

[Rich2018]

lol. those were examples.

No they weren't - a class action ?

You'll have to be more specific than that. LOL

I'm talking about government bills passed by Congress.

What would be an example of a "common" policy to solve simple poverty ?
What would be an example of a "general" policy to solve simple poverty ?

Specifically what would those bill seek the US government to do, and/or what would they determine people and organizations must do ?

 

[JD1965]

What do certain terms used in the Constitution mean, and do they have any weight in today's jurisprudence?

For example: Congress shall make no law...

...Shall not be violated...

No person shall be held to answer

In all criminal prosecutions the right of trial by jury shall be preserved

Excessive bail shall not be required

Do any of these terms carry any weight in today's legal proceedings?

It doesn't matter what the Congress or the Chief Executive or the USSC say the Constitution means, it only matters what a tipping-point of Americans say it means. In other words, if the American people want the word SHALL to mean something, it will.

 

[Rich2018]

It doesn't matter what the Congress or the Chief Executive or the USSC say the Constitution means, it only matters what a tipping-point of Americans say it means. In other words, if the American people want the word SHALL to mean something, it will.

Or the government - don't forget them.

Example, the Constitution states anyone refusing to return a census form shall be fined $100 (a sure sign the Constitution had not aged well)


However a court ruled that to get people to complete their census form, that $100 is applied to EACH question = $1500

Hmmmm

 

[JD1965]

Or the government - don't forget them.

No, that's the point I'm making, that the government, the three branches and the people who currently occupy them, will do whatever a tipping-point majority of Americans tell them to.

 

[JD1965]

Sorry that's just double-talk
A well written Constitution for the 21st century would have no wiggle-room to allow the Supreme Court (supposedly experts in the Constitution) to deliver a 5:4 ruling.

I agree with you. A no-wiggle room document was done once already with the Constitution, it's just that Marbury v. Madison allowed the court to politicize things that were and are none of the federal government's business. Many state applications on record for the Article V Convention convey the intention of the state wanting to discuss the USSC. One amendment could remedy the current situation where the USSC is kind of like its own constitutional convention that alters the republic with each new ruling.

 

[JD1965]

NotreDame,

You do realize that Marbury v. Madison established the ability of the USSC to politicize whatever issue it wants via review. The seven articles of the Constitution are unambiguous, and the only reason people like you believe 5/4 rulings are normal is because you don't understand the full extent of what is currently happening. At present the court has been and continues to act as its own mini constitutional convention that alters the republic with each new ruling.

Of the hundreds of state applications on record for the Article V Convention, many were cast with the intent to formally discuss the USSC and how it operates. In other words, the way things are, are not the way they were meant to be, they have simply become corrupted over time. So not only are the remarks by Rich 2018 correct, they are based on factual history and reason and absolutely have a basis in reality. If we all agree the government is for the public benefit, it's not rocket science to create amendments to address things that distort that type of government into the corrupted government at present.

 

[danielpalos]

No they weren't - a class action ?

You'll have to be more specific than that. LOL

I'm talking about government bills passed by Congress.

What would be an example of a "common" policy to solve simple poverty ?
What would be an example of a "general" policy to solve simple poverty ?

Specifically what would those bill seek the US government to do, and/or what would they determine people and organizations must do ?

i explained it several times. you insist on appealing to ignorance of the concepts in this frivolous and non-legal venue.

 

[Thoreau72]

No, that's the point I'm making, that the government, the three branches and the people who currently occupy them, will do whatever a tipping-point majority of Americans tell them to.

I think that is a romantically naïve view. The three branches don't do what the electorate wants, they do what special interests want.

A cynical view to be sure, but much closer to reality.

 

[danielpalos]

NotreDame,

You do realize that Marbury v. Madison established the ability of the USSC to politicize whatever issue it wants via review. The seven articles of the Constitution are unambiguous, and the only reason people like you believe 5/4 rulings are normal is because you don't understand the full extent of what is currently happening. At present the court has been and continues to act as its own mini constitutional convention that alters the republic with each new ruling.

Of the hundreds of state applications on record for the Article V Convention, many were cast with the intent to formally discuss the USSC and how it operates. In other words, the way things are, are not the way they were meant to be, they have simply become corrupted over time. So not only are the remarks by Rich 2018 correct, they are based on factual history and reason and absolutely have a basis in reality. If we all agree the government is for the public benefit, it's not rocket science to create amendments to address things that distort that type of government into the corrupted government at present.

Equal protection of the laws is already in our Constitutions.

 

[JD1965]

The three branches don't do what the electorate wants, they do what special interests want.

You're incorrect. Not because I say so, but because all history and everything we know about the human condition says so. To correct you, "they" do what special interests want, until a tipping-point of Americans become cognizant of something they want, and then "they" do what the people want.

 

[JD1965]

Equal protection of the laws is already in our Constitutions.

I'm failing to understand why your comment is relevant to mine. Please clarify.

 

[Rich2018]

No, that's the point I'm making, that the government, the three branches and the people who currently occupy them, will do whatever a tipping-point majority of Americans tell them to.

There's comes a tipping point, a point of critical mass if you will, where politicians are forced to listed and follow the demands of the public.

Unfortunately there are very few issues on which the public will speak loud enough or long enough on.


I think most politicians count on the public's short attention span.


I think that most voters are swayed by a cumulative effect on polling day, and only for a few have there been enough issues that they disagree on for them to switch parties.

 

[Rich2018]

i explained it several times. you insist on appealing to ignorance of the concepts in this frivolous and non-legal venue.

I'm asking if you can explain yourself.

If there's ignorance here it's from you.

What would be an example of a "common" policy to solve simple poverty ?
What would be an example of a "general" policy to solve simple poverty ?


Specifically what would those bills seek the US government to do, and/or what would they determine people and organizations must do ?



Why are you unable to specify examples of what those bills would be and why the meet your "common" and "general" criteria.

You do know what a policy is ?
You are aware of one or two policies of the US government in the last 100 years or so ?

 

[danielpalos]

I'm failing to understand why your comment is relevant to mine. Please clarify.

A tangential wondering as to why things are not as they should be when our Founding Fathers did such an excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm asking if you can explain yourself.

If there's ignorance here it's from you.

What would be an example of a "common" policy to solve simple poverty ?
What would be an example of a "general" policy to solve simple poverty ?


Specifically what would those bills seek the US government to do, and/or what would they determine people and organizations must do ?



Why are you unable to specify examples of what those bills would be and why the meet your "common" and "general" criteria.

You do know what a policy is ?
You are aware of one or two policies of the US government in the last 100 years or so ?

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency not already covered by the particular powers.

 

[JD1965]

A tangential wondering as to why things are not as they should be when our Founding Fathers did such an excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

Because after its adoption, certain people (lawyers and judges) figured out how to circumvent it. Some say if the "missing 13th Amendment" had not been buried, we would have made it out of the mess we're in today. Regardless, it's still great as ever, and it has not been shredded/destroyed/mangled, it is simply being ignored. Which is why I advocate for the Article V Convention because going through that process will alter the status quo of ignoring it.

 

[NotreDame]

NotreDame,

You do realize that Marbury v. Madison established the ability of the USSC to politicize whatever issue it wants via review. The seven articles of the Constitution are unambiguous, and the only reason people like you believe 5/4 rulings are normal is because you don't understand the full extent of what is currently happening. At present the court has been and continues to act as its own mini constitutional convention that alters the republic with each new ruling.

Of the hundreds of state applications on record for the Article V Convention, many were cast with the intent to formally discuss the USSC and how it operates. In other words, the way things are, are not the way they were meant to be, they have simply become corrupted over time. So not only are the remarks by Rich 2018 correct, they are based on factual history and reason and absolutely have a basis in reality. If we all agree the government is for the public benefit, it's not rocket science to create amendments to address things that distort that type of government into the corrupted government at present.

You do realize that Marbury v. Madison established the ability of the USSC to politicize whatever issue it wants via review.

The decision “established” what you redeemed? Not convinced. An unintended consequence of the decision perhaps.

The seven articles of the Constitution are unambiguous, and the only reason people like you believe 5/4 rulings are normal is because you don't understand the full extent of what is currently happening

Our impending failure to communicate is your inability to properly understand what I said, rolled up in your BS speculation of what I do or don’t understand.

I never took the view 5-4 rulings “are normal.” I’ve never had such a thought. Get your damn facts about my position right, then F’ em up you as you please.

So not only are the remarks by Rich 2018 correct

They aren’t. You’ve said nothing showing them to be correct. Your Strawman argument of my view doesn’t validate his point either.

it's not rocket science

It is not rocket science to make Strawman arguments, yet you do it, just as justices can and do ignore plain text meaning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JD1965]

They aren’t. You’ve said nothing showing them to be correct. Your Strawman argument of my view doesn’t validate his point either. It is not rocket science to make Strawman arguments, yet you do it, just as justices can and do ignore plain text meaning.

You need me to show you how what Rich2018 said was correct? You appeared to be arguing 5/4 or split rulings are normal. They're not, they're symptom to a corrupt flim-flam. You appeared to condone it. I didn't know I was making an argument, I thought I interjecting the truth of what M v. M did and still does.

 

[Thoreau72]

You're incorrect. Not because I say so, but because all history and everything we know about the human condition says so. To correct you, "they" do what special interests want, until a tipping-point of Americans become cognizant of something they want, and then "they" do what the people want.

That is a nice romantic view. I fervently hope it will someday become reality.

Just last night I watched part 2 of a series by Oliver Stone, entitled something like The Unofficial History of the US. Among other things regarding WWII, it covered with much old black and white films from the event, the Democratic Convention of 1944, in which political power brokers within the party derailed the desires of the vast majority of the delegates to the convention to again make Henry Wallace the VP with FDR, as had been for his other terms. Wallace, an advocate for the working class, was extremely popular in this country and others, and among all the delegates. But he was most unpopular with the leaders of industry and the war profiteers. The power brokers inserted and nominated Harry Truman, and likely you know the rest of the story.

That was repeated just 4 years ago when the DNC put Hillary up instead of Bernie.

So, really I do want you to be right, but at age 72 I've seen nothing to suggest you are right. The Kelo decision and the Americans United decision clearly demonstrate that the judiciary are as controlled by the oligarchy as the other 2 branches.

 

[danielpalos]

Because after its adoption, certain people (lawyers and judges) figured out how to circumvent it. Some say if the "missing 13th Amendment" had not been buried, we would have made it out of the mess we're in today. Regardless, it's still great as ever, and it has not been shredded/destroyed/mangled, it is simply being ignored. Which is why I advocate for the Article V Convention because going through that process will alter the status quo of ignoring it.

the States and the People are supposed to be a check and balance via our Tenth and Ninth Amendments.

 

[Rich2018]

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency not already covered by the particular powers.

So...

What would be an example of a "General" welfare policy - covering "any given contingency" ?
What would be an example of a "Common" welfare policy NOT covering "any given contingency" ?

Do you know what a policy is ?

Why are you unable to specify a SINGLE example of what such a bill/policy would be and why the meet your "common" and "general" criteria ?


Do you not understand what is being asked of you ?

 

[danielpalos]

There is no contingency that cannot be covered by a welfare clause, General.

Our common problems can be dealt with via the common law as long as Government is functioning.

 

[Rich2018]

There is no contingency that cannot be covered by a welfare clause, General.

Our common problems can be dealt with via the common law as long as Government is functioning.

So what would be examples of either?

Even hypothetical polities ?