Is the Constitution strong enough to survive the current Supreme Court?

[NWRatCon]

You leftists clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

This is exactly the facile, unreasoned, ahistoric, simplistic argumentation which is typical of the right, and of the right wing of the Court. It shows a complete lack of understanding, of context, and of substance. In short, you haven't a clue what you're talking about, and it shows. You're casting about for straw to cover yourself because you've been caught out and are embarrassed.

Let's start with the simplest of premise, because that's the level of understanding that might get through: How many authors of the Constitution were there? How many different understandings of its substance? To begin with, at least 42 (of the 41 men present at its signing, 38 signed the document - with George Read also signing for an absent John Dickinson - and 3 dissented). Each had a different opinion of the meanings of several provisions. Madison is often credited as "the father of the Constitution", but that's more than a bit of an exaggeration. He was, of course, the literal drafter, as the secretary of the drafting committee of the Virginia Plan that set the original framework for its structure. But that was just the start. Madison was not even a member of the Committee of Detail that created the final version that was debated, modified, refined and eventually signed. He was only one of the delegates to the convention. Then, of course, there are the delegates of the various States legislatures who considered the document prior to its ratification.

Madison didn't even agree with himself. If one actually has some acquaintance with the history of the document, one would be aware that his contributions to the Federalist papers, many of which Madison authored, and his later writings are contradictory. Moreover, the speech Madison made, which you've quoted, was the losing argument in that debate. Context matters.

 

[American]

Yea, especially on subjects or issues that were not even possible to envion eh?
Bottom line is that the court renders opinions based on their understanding of the underlying principles and at times you like them and cal them "originalist" and at times you do not and call it something else. The court while never perfect, because it is made up of mortal fallible humans, with their own understandings and biases is the best thing we got. The justices sitting on the court are there with the advice and consent of the people through their Senators, political gamesmanship notwithstanding, and we have no other choice but to comply with their decisions whether we like them or not.
When we will be ready to remove the political biases from the court, we will change the way the court is made up and how it functions.

The character of human kind hasn't changed over the millennia. People are people and subject to the same sins, faults and emotions as those thousands of years ago. The Constitution embodies, among other things, clauses that attempt to mitigate the problems associated with human character. The Founders were quite wise in understanding this, in spite of their own flaws, which they also well knew. But we're not here to critique the Founders, but their product of government. Considering the difficulty of bringing together a nation of varying interests, they did a damn good job to get it off the ground, in spite of the can they kicked down the road. There are virtually no other Constitutions that are as old as ours, and have perished with time. The US, virtually one of the youngest nations on Earth, has got the oldest Constitution, which is a testament to its quality. It has been amended to attempt to correct some flaws, and in some cases created flaws.

 

[NWRatCon]

The character of human kind hasn't changed over the millennia. People are people and subject to the same sins, faults and emotions as those thousands of years ago. The Constitution embodies, among other things, clauses that attempt to mitigate the problems associated with human character. The Founders were quite wise in understanding this, in spite of their own flaws, which they also well knew. But we're not here to critique the Founders, but their product of government. Considering the difficulty of bringing together a nation of varying interests, they did a damn good job to get it off the ground, in spite of the can they kicked down the road. There are virtually no other Constitutions that are as old as ours, and have perished with time. The US, virtually one of the youngest nations on Earth, has got the oldest Constitution, which is a testament to its quality. It has been amended to attempt to correct some flaws, and in some cases created flaws.

And in some cases, maintained flaws. The beauty of reason is identifying flaws and correcting them; the bane of humanity is identifying flaws and maintaining them. I revere the Constitution - it's an amazingly broad and enduring achievement - but I recognize its flaws, too (like the Electoral College). It was a product of compromise and it shows. Indeed, it took 10 Amendments just to get the damned thing ratified (and a good thing, too).

The framers also built into the system methods of course correction, including judicial interpretation - in large measure that is the point of the oft-ignored 9th Amendment - and amendment.

But eliminating errors in such an important, controversial and controlling document is terribly difficult. The framers knew, for example, that slavery was inconsistent with the principles it embodied, but they maintained it to get the document passed (so much for "sunset" clauses). It took 90 years and a civil war to correct that one, and more than an additional 100 years to acknowledge and expiate its vestiges (like Jim Crow). That's an ongoing effort, too. Fixing "the liquor error" was relatively simple and quick. The 13th,14th and 15th Amendments were adopted in 1865, 1868, and 1870 and we're still trying, imperfectly, to incorporate them.

 

[American]

And in some cases, maintained flaws. The beauty of reason is identifying flaws and correcting them; the bane of humanity is identifying flaws and maintaining them. I revere the Constitution - it's an amazingly broad and enduring achievement - but I recognize its flaws, too (like the Electoral College). It was a product of compromise and it shows. Indeed, it took 10 Amendments just to get the damned thing ratified (and a good thing, too).

The framers also built into the system methods of course correction, including judicial interpretation - in large measure that is the point of the oft-ignored 9th Amendment - and amendment.

But eliminating errors in such an important, controversial and controlling document is terribly difficult. The framers knew, for example, that slavery was inconsistent with the principles it embodied, but they maintained it to get the document passed (so much for "sunset" clauses). It took 90 years and a civil war to correct that one, and more than an additional 100 years to acknowledge and expiate its vestiges (like Jim Crow). That's an ongoing effort, too. Fixing "the liquor error" was relatively simple and quick. The 13th,14th and 15th Amendments were adopted in 1865, 1868, and 1870 and we're still trying, imperfectly, to incorporate them.

That interpretation was never "built-in", it was established during Marbury vs Madison. The Anti-Federalists lobbied for the changes that eventually became the Bill of Rights (based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights).

Since the Constitution isn't perfect, leftwingers want to shitcan the whole thing and go to socialism (which is tons better ). That's where most of us part company. They also don't want to amend it, but cheat their way around it through the court system by reinterpreting shit that isn't even there.

 

[mrjurrs]

Lol... I'm referencing the man who wrote the document and defined its meaning, and you think that carries no weight??

You guys are beyond dishonest.

Of course it carries weight, but not in reference to our discussion.

 

[wist43]

This is exactly the facile, unreasoned, ahistoric, simplistic argumentation which is typical of the right, and of the right wing of the Court. It shows a complete lack of understanding, of context, and of substance. In short, you haven't a clue what you're talking about, and it shows. You're casting about for straw to cover yourself because you've been caught out and are embarrassed.

Let's start with the simplest of premise, because that's the level of understanding that might get through: How many authors of the Constitution were there? How many different understandings of its substance? To begin with, at least 42 (of the 41 men present at its signing, 38 signed the document - with George Read also signing for an absent John Dickinson - and 3 dissented). Each had a different opinion of the meanings of several provisions. Madison is often credited as "the father of the Constitution", but that's more than a bit of an exaggeration. He was, of course, the literal drafter, as the secretary of the drafting committee of the Virginia Plan that set the original framework for its structure. But that was just the start. Madison was not even a member of the Committee of Detail that created the final version that was debated, modified, refined and eventually signed. He was only one of the delegates to the convention. Then, of course, there are the delegates of the various States legislatures who considered the document prior to its ratification.

Madison didn't even agree with himself. If one actually has some acquaintance with the history of the document, one would be aware that his contributions to the Federalist papers, many of which Madison authored, and his later writings are contradictory. Moreover, the speech Madison made, which you've quoted, was the losing argument in that debate. Context matters.

Show me the quote where Madison says general welfare is an enumerated power.

 

[wist43]

Of course it carries weight, but not in reference to our discussion.

Of course it does... you're saying the government can do pretty much anything they want under general welfare, whereas I and our Founding Fathers say they can't.

 

[NWRatCon]

That interpretation was never "built-in", it was established during Marbury vs Madison. The Anti-Federalists lobbied for the changes that eventually became the Bill of Rights (based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights).

Since the Constitution isn't perfect, leftwingers want to shitcan the whole thing and go to socialism (which is tons better ). That's where most of us part company. They also don't want to amend it, but cheat their way around it through the court system by reinterpreting shit that isn't even there.

<sigh> I was almost ready to "like" a post of yours, and then you go haring of into LA LA land again...

Pray tell, why did the framers create a judicial system at all? Why is a whole article devoted to it? What kind of cases or controversies might they adjudicate? What could they possibly have meant by "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority"? Where does it say, "except the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments"? And where does it eliminate the entirely of common law - oh wait, it actually says "and Equity" - so nevermind that.

Marbury v. Madison (yes, that Madison) was not invented out of whole cloth, it was the natural product of the text itself, and of hundreds of years of judicial interpretation. It was also exactly what the framers anticipated by "checks and balances". Many of them were, in fact, lawyers, and quite familiar with the process. In the words of the aforementioned Madison himself: "In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments." Federalist 51. As he put it succinctly "the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others."

 

[Terryj]

Of course it does... you're saying the government can do pretty much anything they want under general welfare, whereas I and our Founding Fathers say they can't.

You are correct, the General Welfare clause" was never intended to extend to funding anything congress decided to fund. For the first 100 years of our country spending was defined as local or general, local spending relied on the States to fund projects, and general funding was done that benefited the Nation as a whole, such as Ports, Navy, Post Roads ect. General funding was never intended for support of the population or of any whims that congress could come up with, these types of wasteful spending is what has given us a 30 trillion dollar debt.

Justice O’Connor noted in her South Dakota v. Dole dissent: “If the spending power is to be limited only by Congress’ notion of the general welfare, the reality...is that the Spending Clause gives ‘power to the Congress...to become a parliament of the whole people, subject to no restrictions save such as are self-imposed.’ This...was not the Framers’ plan and it is not the meaning of the Spending Clause.”

 

[wist43]

This is exactly the facile, unreasoned, ahistoric, simplistic argumentation which is typical of the right, and of the right wing of the Court. It shows a complete lack of understanding, of context, and of substance. In short, you haven't a clue what you're talking about, and it shows. You're casting about for straw to cover yourself because you've been caught out and are embarrassed.

Let's start with the simplest of premise, because that's the level of understanding that might get through: How many authors of the Constitution were there? How many different understandings of its substance? To begin with, at least 42 (of the 41 men present at its signing, 38 signed the document - with George Read also signing for an absent John Dickinson - and 3 dissented). Each had a different opinion of the meanings of several provisions. Madison is often credited as "the father of the Constitution", but that's more than a bit of an exaggeration. He was, of course, the literal drafter, as the secretary of the drafting committee of the Virginia Plan that set the original framework for its structure. But that was just the start. Madison was not even a member of the Committee of Detail that created the final version that was debated, modified, refined and eventually signed. He was only one of the delegates to the convention. Then, of course, there are the delegates of the various States legislatures who considered the document prior to its ratification.

Madison didn't even agree with himself. If one actually has some acquaintance with the history of the document, one would be aware that his contributions to the Federalist papers, many of which Madison authored, and his later writings are contradictory. Moreover, the speech Madison made, which you've quoted, was the losing argument in that debate. Context matters.

Show me the quote where Madison says general welfare is an enumerated power.

Well?? Where's the quote in which Madison says general welfare is an enumerated power?? Still waiting...

Read Terryj's post above.

 

[NWRatCon]

You are correct, the General Welfare clause" was never intended to extend to funding anything congress decided to fund. For the first 100 years of our country spending was defined as local or general, local spending relied on the States to fund projects, and general funding was done that benefited the Nation as a whole, such as Ports, Navy, Post Roads ect. General funding was never intended for support of the population or of any whims that congress could come up with, these types of wasteful spending is what has given us a 30 trillion dollar debt.

Justice O’Connor noted in her South Dakota v. Dole dissent: “If the spending power is to be limited only by Congress’ notion of the general welfare, the reality...is that the Spending Clause gives ‘power to the Congress...to become a parliament of the whole people, subject to no restrictions save such as are self-imposed.’ This...was not the Framers’ plan and it is not the meaning of the Spending Clause.”

Good to know that there are still plenty out there so don't know shit about the Constitution and history. I love how simplistic rightwing thinking is, especially on a topic as nuanced as this. It must be nice to live in such a simple, black and white world, unfettered by conditions of reality. Not at all like the real world the rest of us occupy.

The simplistic view of the General Welfare Clause that you posit has not existed for more than two centuries, and was never the prevailing view. Nor is it consistent with the language or structure of the Constitution. I know, minor details. It's important, also, to note that O'Connor was writing in dissent.

The prevailing, and historically dominant, view is that expressed by Justice Story and reflected in a couple of centuries of jurisprudence and congressional actions going back to George Washington's administration. The General Welfare clause is a grant of authority to Congress to tax, and to spend, for the general welfare of the nation. It is not unlimited, any more than any other grant of such authority is. It is exactly on par with the National Defense, with which it shares a section and clause. Article I, section 8, clause 1. Again, I know, a minor consideration.

Just sayin'.

 

[wist43]

Good to know that there are still plenty out there so don't know shit about the Constitution and history. I love how simplistic rightwing thinking is, especially on a topic as nuanced as this. It must be nice to live in such a simple, black and white world, unfettered by conditions of reality. Not at all like the real world the rest of us occupy.

The simplistic view of the General Welfare Clause that you posit has not existed for more than two centuries, and was never the prevailing view. Nor is it consistent with the language or structure of the Constitution. I know, minor details. It's important, also, to note that O'Connor was writing in dissent.

The prevailing, and historically dominant, view is that expressed by Justice Story and reflected in a couple of centuries of jurisprudence and congressional actions going back to George Washington's administration. The General Welfare clause is a grant of authority to Congress to tax, and to spend, for the general welfare of the nation. It is not unlimited, any more than any other grant of such authority is. It is exactly on par with the National Defense, with which it shares a section and clause. Article I, section 8, clause 1. Again, I know, a minor consideration.

Just sayin'.

So again where does the Constitution authorize SS and Medicare??

Your Constitution is that which conjures magic is therefore Constitutional??

It also conjures Ponzi schemes and national bankruptcy/collapse.

When the U.S. collapses in a couple of years, will it be the fault of those of us who wanted to abide by the Constitution??

 

[wist43]

You are correct, the General Welfare clause" was never intended to extend to funding anything congress decided to fund. For the first 100 years of our country spending was defined as local or general, local spending relied on the States to fund projects, and general funding was done that benefited the Nation as a whole, such as Ports, Navy, Post Roads ect. General funding was never intended for support of the population or of any whims that congress could come up with, these types of wasteful spending is what has given us a 30 trillion dollar debt.

Justice O’Connor noted in her South Dakota v. Dole dissent: “If the spending power is to be limited only by Congress’ notion of the general welfare, the reality...is that the Spending Clause gives ‘power to the Congress...to become a parliament of the whole people, subject to no restrictions save such as are self-imposed.’ This...was not the Framers’ plan and it is not the meaning of the Spending Clause.”

These leftists are indoctrinated and dishonest... they're unreachable.

 

[wist43]

Good to know that there are still plenty out there so don't know shit about the Constitution and history. I love how simplistic rightwing thinking is, especially on a topic as nuanced as this. It must be nice to live in such a simple, black and white world, unfettered by conditions of reality. Not at all like the real world the rest of us occupy.

The simplistic view of the General Welfare Clause that you posit has not existed for more than two centuries, and was never the prevailing view. Nor is it consistent with the language or structure of the Constitution. I know, minor details. It's important, also, to note that O'Connor was writing in dissent.

The prevailing, and historically dominant, view is that expressed by Justice Story and reflected in a couple of centuries of jurisprudence and congressional actions going back to George Washington's administration. The General Welfare clause is a grant of authority to Congress to tax, and to spend, for the general welfare of the nation. It is not unlimited, any more than any other grant of such authority is. It is exactly on par with the National Defense, with which it shares a section and clause. Article I, section 8, clause 1. Again, I know, a minor consideration.

Just sayin'.

NWR, no one on our side of the argument is arguing that interpretation of the Constitution is not mostly as you say.

It is obvious - our FedGiv has it's fingers in everbody's everything.

We are $30 trillion in debt; the FedGov operates ponzi schemes as if the were a Constitutional requirement; and, most of those Ponzi schemes are going to become insolvent sooner rather than later.

We get it - "your side" won a long time ago. The only problem is, those interpretations of the Constitution have paved the way for a criminal upper class to steal the wealth of the nation and people, and set themselves up as our overlords...

... and there's nothing that can be done to stop them.

They are going to deliberately crash the economy and our monetary system, scrap the Constitution, and replace it with an authoritarian state.

Our Founding Fathers warned this would happen, but those warnings fall on deaf ears today - you among them.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Why do you lie?

What was the lie ?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Show me the quote where Madison says general welfare is an enumerated power.

Did you ever get an answer to this request ?

 

[HikerGuy83]

And yet, that's exactly what this court is doing. You're not paying attention, or too bound up with ideological purity to care. The Supreme Court Is Putting Democracy at Risk (NYT, Opinion, Subscription). "In two disturbing rulings closing out the Supreme Court’s term, the court’s six-justice conservative majority, over the loud protests of its three-liberal minority, has shown itself hostile to American democracy." That's not hyperbole.

Claiming it isn't hyperbole does not make it so.

Not saying what it is in terms of hyperbole....without more information.

However, we can say (let me know if I am wrong):

This is a conclusion drawn from something that isn't provided.

In numerous recent decisions, most specifically Shelby County, and yesterday's Brnovich, they gutted the voting rights act. Neither of those decisions are dictated by, or frankly consistent with, the Constitution, and represent unprecedented judicial activism, comparable to the infamous Dred Scott decision. Again, not hyperbole. They are creating judicial law out of whole cloth.

To demonstrate this, you need to first describe what the voting rights act was intended to address, protect, or create.

Then there has to be the demonstrated "gutting" you describe as compared to how it impedes the intent of the law.

All I am seeing is claims.

BTW: Shelby was in 2013.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Good to know that there are still plenty out there so don't know shit about the Constitution and history. I love how simplistic rightwing thinking is, especially on a topic as nuanced as this. It must be nice to live in such a simple, black and white world, unfettered by conditions of reality. Not at all like the real world the rest of us occupy.

The simplistic view of the General Welfare Clause that you posit has not existed for more than two centuries, and was never the prevailing view. Nor is it consistent with the language or structure of the Constitution. I know, minor details. It's important, also, to note that O'Connor was writing in dissent.

The prevailing, and historically dominant, view is that expressed by Justice Story and reflected in a couple of centuries of jurisprudence and congressional actions going back to George Washington's administration. The General Welfare clause is a grant of authority to Congress to tax, and to spend, for the general welfare of the nation. It is not unlimited, any more than any other grant of such authority is. It is exactly on par with the National Defense, with which it shares a section and clause. Article I, section 8, clause 1. Again, I know, a minor consideration.

Just sayin'.

So where is the disagreement here ?

In reading the post you quoted, I don't see what your concerns are.

How is the idea that General Welfare not intended to fund anything congress wants to fund different from what you stated ?

I don't believe that is inconsistent with anything you've posted.

You'll need to further explain the rub.

 

[HikerGuy83]

no it hasn't, and no it won't.

it will not be insolvent in 4 years nor is it unconstitutional.

lol

yes, you most certainly are.

no you aren't.

You have more freedoms today than you did 30 years ago.

Saying Un-uh isn't really a great argument.

And he is NOT alone in his point of view.

 

[HikerGuy83]

But it is acceptable to play politics with the makeup of the court? Hypocrisy much?

That process didn't just show up.

Unfortunately, that game started a long time ago.

It has only gotten worse.

And some groups count on the activism of the court to get a "minority" agenda into the general governmental process.

 

[HikerGuy83]

It is utter bullshit intended for morons who can not think for themselves. If the original intent would be clear no interpretation would be necessary and as such what oany justice can do is render an opinion. You may need to look up the definition of the word and have it explained to you.

But, the constitution could not anticipate the world as it is today vs. what it was back in 1788.

It can't, not did pretend to be able to, address every issue that comes up.

 

[rahl]

Saying Un-uh isn't really a great argument.

I agree. Which is why I instead pointed out that the constitution and the supreme court shows him to be incorrect.

And he is NOT alone in his point of view.

yes he is.

 

[HikerGuy83]

The OP is merely butt-hurt because the Supreme Court sided with Arizona and election integrity, and against leftist filth seeking to further corrupt the election process. The very last thing Democrats want are "free and fair" elections, as they have repeatedly demonstrated by violating their own State election laws.

I am a conservative.

And I can't argue against your claim.

I also can't support it either.

It would be good to have a pro-active article(s) on why the Az case isn't what the OP claims.

This in reasoned terms.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I agree. Which is why I instead pointed out that the constitution and the supreme court shows him to be incorrect.

yes he is.

1. Please provide the post number that gives the argument you reference.

2. I am of the same opinion and I know countless others. I realize this is anecdotal. However, it is a perspective that looks to what is real.

 

[rahl]

1. Please provide the post number that gives the argument you reference.

in the post you quoted

2. I am of the same opinion and I know countless others. I realize this is anecdotal. However, it is a perspective that looks to what is real.

you and a handful of other people who are also incorrect, doesn't change constitutional law.