- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,993
- Reaction score
- 60,557
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The Constitution is a pretty good group of ideas...but it is FAR from ideal and it needs work.
And those Constitutional fanatics who think it is a perfect document...tell someone else as I do not care how great you think it is.
In fact, I don't even begin to care.
It is a solid but highly flawed 'paper' and needs lots of work.
Simple question do you care if the Government violates the Constitution?
Simple question do you care if the Government violates the Constitution?
Whose interpretation of the constitution? Yours? Mine? Some bloggers? What about a blowhard on TV? I don't care if the government violates any laymen's interpretation of the constitution. I do care if the government violates the federal court system's interpretation of the constitution as that is the only one that really matters.
In all the cited cases the private parties were deemed to be state actors because of the relationship between the private party and the state.
So no I'm afraid you are incorrect.
Perhaps I am. It was interesting though to take the opposite side and see how you would defend. I am enlightened.
The Constitution is a pretty good group of ideas...but it is FAR from ideal and it needs work.
And those Constitutional fanatics who think it is a perfect document...tell someone else as I do not care how great you think it is.
In fact, I don't even begin to care.
It is a solid but highly flawed 'paper' and needs lots of work.
Bait thread alert!
When did you stop beating your wife?Not really, just asking a question.
You did not respond nor refute one thing I said in the post you reproduced as your lead in.
I gave you several pieces of evidence which prove beyond any doubt that the southerners who owned slaves considered them as human beings and people.
i have always refuted everything you ever say.
please link to just a dozen or so.
well 1 source is to look at all of your posts where to put on your track shoes and run to the USSC.
this is a favorite tactic of yours, after you cite the founders or our founding documents, and then are provided wrong [by me], ................. that you make the court your last refuge.
You were challenged to present a dozen. You failed to present even one.
That failure and impotence on your part speaks volumes about your boast and claim.
i am pressed for time now, so i am going to have to make this a continuing post to show your failures.
but i am not going to go spree to post a dozen of those failures, so i shall post 2.
i will give you 2, one being an oldie and goodie, Hamilton's Report on Manufactures, where you claimed hamilton said that government could do just about anything which was necessary and proper.......and the most recent is the one where you claiming the founders intended for firearms to be regulated by the federal government in the constitution.
as i said.... i am pressed for time at this moment , but when i return i will post the links to them, and how you failed and your deceptions in those post.
for now i have a LATE lunch engagement, BUT i shall return...
Simple question do you care if the Government violates the Constitution?
I think it is often necessary for the Courts to redefine the Constitution to better fit with our present circumstances or unexpected contingencies. For example, there is a school of thought that essentially views Brown v. Board as a moment of 'Constitutional Amendment' with the legal arguments put forth serving as a smoke screen for that fact. Decisions should always be rooted in the law and have a basis in a legitimate form of Constitutional interpretation in order to retain the legitimacy of the courts--but I'm not bothered if these are smokescreens for necessary changes. This sort of flexibility has, I believe, served us well throughout our history.
Well, Redress has already asked you...
However, I always would like to know of these bad flaws. I can understand someone calling the constitution flawed. Nothing in this world seems to be perfect. Calling it highly flawed is interesting though.
The constitution, in my opinion which you don't care about, is nearly perfect not because of what is written on it, but because it was made specifically for the people and by the people and through the people, it can change, evolve, better itself.
So courts should be allowed to change it and by pass the amendment process?
Yes. Limited by the circumstances of the decision in question and its context. We have mechanisms for striking back at egregious decisions that so baldly violate the Constitution both in letter and in spirit, and upset important policy objectives. As yet we have not needed to draw upon them. I take that as one sign that the system works quite well.
Ok at least you are honest about allowing the Constitution being violated.
Flaw 1: It was written during a different cultural and socioeconomic times.
Flaw 2: Wording can be ambiguous.
Both are absolutely crippling flaws for any legal document.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?