• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

living document or fixed

American said:
Absolutely, through the amendment process.
Click to expand...

He never said that was the only way. You are reading something into the text that isn't there. Lol What are you, a supreme court justice or something?
 
American said:
All leftwingers do.
Click to expand...

You perhaps need to stay in touch a bit more with those on the other end of the spectrum. Progressives are no fans of the current Supreme Court - even with the occassional health care decision. Just mention the words CITIZENS UNITED and see how much love the SC gets from progressives.
 
haymarket said:
You perhaps need to stay in touch a bit more with those on the other end of the spectrum. Progressives are no fans of the current Supreme Court - even with the occassional health care decision. Just mention the words CITIZENS UNITED and see how much love the SC gets from progressives.
Click to expand...

Well, that's because Citizen's United was decided correctly.
 
Citizens United.... correct decision ..... Perhaps if you want to march further and faster down the Road to Serfdom where corporate fascism is the vehicle of the future.
 
zstep18 said:
No, a jury decides whether a defendant is innocent or guilty based on the evidence provided. The President, along with the hundreds of enforcement agencies and other agencies are the ones who enforce the law. And the People of the the United States are represented by the Legislative branch of government. We as the People elect representatives who represent our interests. The United States is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.
Click to expand...

Nobody can be punished without a Jury trial and a conviction. The jury, you and I are who enforce the law. Think about it. The excecutive branch can only present a case the law was broken. They cannot send you to prison without the consent of your peers. I would at least say constitutionaly anyhow, it would seem our executive branch would like to bypass you and I. I dont know about the rest of you but I am rather tired of the government taking power it has no right to.
 
PirateMk1 said:
The excecutive branch can only present a case the law was broken.
Click to expand...

That's enforcing the law. Saying "you broke the law and we're going to send you to trial" is enforcing the law. When the FBI comes to someones house and arrests them, that is enforcing the law. It's called law enforcement.
 
Indeed said:
To all who read this post, just descibe whether you do or do not view the US Constitution as a living document. Please just dont let it come down to name calling. It's childish and i see it far too often on this site.

I personally believe that it is both living and fixed.(Kind of like a Zombie) I believe this because what is written in it can never be changed but amendments can be added later to negate or enhance the effect.
Click to expand...

You want us to vote on a slogan?
 
zstep18 said:
That's enforcing the law. Saying "you broke the law and we're going to send you to trial" is enforcing the law. When the FBI comes to someones house and arrests them, that is enforcing the law. It's called law enforcement.
Click to expand...

Really, what if the jury says to the goverment "Go pound sand."? How was the law enforced?
 
Indeed said:
To all who read this post, just descibe whether you do or do not view the US Constitution as a living document. Please just dont let it come down to name calling. It's childish and i see it far too often on this site.

I personally believe that it is both living and fixed.(Kind of like a Zombie) I believe this because what is written in it can never be changed but amendments can be added later to negate or enhance the effect.
Click to expand...

My take is that it is a legal document, and as such its text is fixed. On the other hand, when the states established the constitution between themselves, they included a provision whereby they could amend it, so it is certainly possible to update the law as need arises. Even without amendment, the all law must be interpreted and applied to each individual case over time, so the constitution should be able to be applied to today's circumstances, just as it was applied immediately after ratification.
 
zstep18 said:
As opposed to what? Are you implying that all "liberal" decisions were decided incorrectly?
Click to expand...

What's your problem?

Citizens United is good law, or tell me how it isn't. Some liberal decisions are good, like Brown v. Board of Education. Some conservative decisions are good, like D.C. v. Heller. But some cases are simply nonpartisan, good law. These include Citizens United, and the recent NFIB v. Sebelius. Citizens United is considered right wing by people who don't understand law. The NFIB case is generally considered liberal because it upholds Obama's healthcare reform. But neither of these cases are truly partisan (at least the Roberts opinion in NFIB, anyway).
 
Guy Incognito said:
What's your problem?

Citizens United is good law, or tell me how it isn't. Some liberal decisions are good, like Brown v. Board of Education. Some conservative decisions are good, like D.C. v. Heller. But some cases are simply nonpartisan, good law. These include Citizens United, and the recent NFIB v. Sebelius. Citizens United is considered right wing by people who don't understand law. The NFIB case is generally considered liberal because it upholds Obama's healthcare reform. But neither of these cases are truly partisan (at least the Roberts opinion in NFIB, anyway).
Click to expand...

Nevermind. I misread your first response.
 
zstep18 said:
If a break a law is a group of jury members going to come and arrest me?
Click to expand...
Thats not enforcement. The arrest is simply a transportation and detention function of the police. The police does not even file charges that would be the govenment attorney. Enforcement is by definition, consequence. You are accussed of breaking law x and Y happens if you are convicted. The enforcement mechanisim is the Jury trial. This is where the decision to enforce or not is made. The decision is key. Without which all other activity is moot. Police officers did not used to be called law enforcement officers. They used to be called Peace officers. The term Law Enforcement officer is a misnomer their jobs are not enforce the law they dont make that judgement. Their primary function is peace keeping, which when you think about it, is different from law enforcement. I believe IPAST may have been an police officer at one time I am sure he would be happy enlighten you further with a more nuanced explaination than I am capable of providing on how the police functions and the more technical aspects of policing.
 
Guy Incognito said:
What's your problem?

Citizens United is good law, or tell me how it isn't. Some liberal decisions are good, like Brown v. Board of Education. Some conservative decisions are good, like D.C. v. Heller. But some cases are simply nonpartisan, good law. These include Citizens United, and the recent NFIB v. Sebelius. Citizens United is considered right wing by people who don't understand law. The NFIB case is generally considered liberal because it upholds Obama's healthcare reform. But neither of these cases are truly partisan (at least the Roberts opinion in NFIB, anyway).
Click to expand...

There is nothing good about Citizens United. It did not "create more speech" as it would otherwise claim. It was predicated on demonstrably false assumptions about corruption, arbitrary extension of constitutional protections beyond the scope of any previous decisions without any kind of new evidence to support that conclusion, and an agenda literally made up by the conservative majority of the court. Citizens United was a partisan, right wing decision, but that's largely irrelevant. It is a BAD decision, that does the exact opposite of what it purports to do. Spending money is not an act of speech. It is ridiculous to pretend otherwise.
 
Paschendale said:
There is nothing good about Citizens United. It did not "create more speech" as it would otherwise claim. It was predicated on demonstrably false assumptions about corruption, arbitrary extension of constitutional protections beyond the scope of any previous decisions without any kind of new evidence to support that conclusion, and an agenda literally made up by the conservative majority of the court. Citizens United was a partisan, right wing decision, but that's largely irrelevant. It is a BAD decision, that does the exact opposite of what it purports to do. Spending money is not an act of speech. It is ridiculous to pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

Hoo boy, here come the liberal talking points. I love this part, it's hilarious: "Citizens United was a partisan, right wing decision, but that's largely irrelevant."

That's really what this is about, you don't like it. But the bottom line of Citizens United is that it is perfectly logical. You just want the court to legislate from the bench, so all of a sudden your partisan interpretation of the Constitution becomes gospel. You don't give a **** about what is good jurisprudence, you just care about getting the policy you want.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Hoo boy, here come the liberal talking points. I love this part, it's hilarious: "Citizens United was a partisan, right wing decision, but that's largely irrelevant."

That's really what this is about, you don't like it. But the bottom line of Citizens United is that it is perfectly logical. You just want the court to legislate from the bench, so all of a sudden your partisan interpretation of the Constitution becomes gospel. You don't give a **** about what is good jurisprudence, you just care about getting the policy you want.
Click to expand...

I was replying to your assertion that it was a nonpartisan decision. That is simply not true. Read about how Citizens United was told to rewrite their complaint so that they would ask the court to allow unlimited spending. Read Stevens' dissent. It's all there.

The merits of the argument have nothing to do with its partisanship. But there are no merits. The argument is complete bull, from start to finish. More than anything else, and this does bear repeating, it is predicated on demonstrably false assumptions. It declared that independent campaign expenditures could not cause corruption. Ever. The majority opinion in the case relies on that as an ironclad fact. The challenge from Montana this past summer showed examples that disprove it, and showed that the kind of laws that Citizens United overturned had exactly the desired effect of stopping that corruption. The Citizens United decision has no bearing whatsoever on the realities of electoral procedure. There is no "good law" in it. There is no "good jurisprudence." And it is not "perfectly logical." It is based on lies.
 
Paschendale said:
I was replying to your assertion that it was a nonpartisan decision. That is simply not true. Read about how Citizens United was told to rewrite their complaint so that they would ask the court to allow unlimited spending. Read Stevens' dissent. It's all there.

The merits of the argument have nothing to do with its partisanship. But there are no merits. The argument is complete bull, from start to finish. More than anything else, and this does bear repeating, it is predicated on demonstrably false assumptions. It declared that independent campaign expenditures could not cause corruption. Ever. The majority opinion in the case relies on that as an ironclad fact. The challenge from Montana this past summer showed examples that disprove it, and showed that the kind of laws that Citizens United overturned had exactly the desired effect of stopping that corruption. The Citizens United decision has no bearing whatsoever on the realities of electoral procedure. There is no "good law" in it. There is no "good jurisprudence." And it is not "perfectly logical." It is based on lies.
Click to expand...

Apart from a minor procedural issue you disagree with, you really haven't identified anything wrong with the rationale of the actual decision in Citizens United. You want to hang your hat on that, but it is a small potatoes and makes you look like a petty partisan.
 
I'll try this one more time, GI. Please try to pay attention.

Predicated.
On.
Demonstrably.
False.
Assumptions.
About.
Corruption.

It has all the same jurisprudence of dismissing a criminal defendant's alibi because you believe people can be in two places at once.

I know you're not stupid, GI. I know you have sufficient reading comprehension. Stop pretending.
 
Paschendale said:
I'll try this one more time, GI. Please try to pay attention.

Predicated.
On.
Demonstrably.
False.
Assumptions.
About.
Corruption.

It has all the same jurisprudence of dismissing a criminal defendant's alibi because you believe people can be in two places at once.

I know you're not stupid, GI. I know you have sufficient reading comprehension. Stop pretending.
Click to expand...

What does the truth or falsity of reality have to do with anything?

You're righter about me than you may realize. I'm not stupid, and neither are you. As a matter of fact, I agree with your underlying point. That corporations are evil and so on. I really do.

But the law of corporate personhood is a legal fiction. That's literal.. Corporations represent the will of their shareholders in legal fact if not in actual fact. That's the salient legal point here. Citizens United follows logically from a the terribly true legal nature of corporate personhood.

I mean, attack the problem at its source. The problem is corporate personhood, not the fact that we are following this legal fiction to its logical conclusion.

So, really, it's good law. Stevens is just being an activist.
 
Guy Incognito said:
What does the truth or falsity of reality have to do with anything?

You're righter about me than you may realize. I'm not stupid, and neither are you. As a matter of fact, I agree with your underlying point. That corporations are evil and so on. I really do.

But the law of corporate personhood is a legal fiction. That's literal.. Corporations represent the will of their shareholders in legal fact if not in actual fact. That's the salient legal point here. Citizens United follows logically from a the terribly true legal nature of corporate personhood.

I mean, attack the problem at its source. The problem is corporate personhood, not the fact that we are following this legal fiction to its logical conclusion.

So, really, it's good law. Stevens is just being an activist.
Click to expand...

I acuatually agree with both you and Paschendale on this. I would like to see the the corprerations rights as a "person" limited. They are a collection of people and each of those people has inalieanable rights. The corperations rights on the other hand should be limited and can be limited as they are a legal entity. They should not enjoy full personhood as the courts have given them. The corperate officers and the board members should not enjoy immunity of their actions, they should be just as liable as if they were sole proprietors. The immunity should only go to non active participants of the company the shareholders. Full disclosure I am an owner in a class C corperation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom