What has Obama done that violates the Constitution?

[misterman]

It's unfortunate that you'll have to do your own work.

I did. There is nothing in the thread.

 

[Whip Comes Down]

violate the Constitution.

That all depends on the methodology we use to ascertain what the Constitution means.

 

[Crunch]

But this is now.

You are aware that there is an established, and easily understood way to change the Constitution.... Right? It was put in there just for your objection, so that it could be changed over time to suit the needs of a growing Nation.

What do they teach kids in school these days?

 

[bicycleman]

Looks like they're teaching the kids to follow the example of our present leader/s, just ignore it.

 

[bicycleman]

That all depends on the methodology we use to ascertain what the Constitution means.

Send a letter to Obama and ask him what methodology he uses.

 

[bicycleman]

I did. There is nothing in the thread.

Nothing you want to acknowledge.

 

[Whip Comes Down]

Send a letter to Obama and ask him what methodology he uses.

Why, boo, he's not a judge.

 

[Crunch]

I meant to sound like I believe one should ascertain the will of the lawmakers according to the rules of construction they assumed would be used to interpret the Constitution.

You don't need to go to all of that trouble.... every stage of the writing of the Constitution was covered and debated by the Federalist Papers, and are available for any to read.

http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/poldocs/fed-papers.pdf

For a summary:

[ame="http://www.scribd.com/doc/3101888/the-federalist-papers-summary-clark-ap-us-history-debakey-hshp"]the federalist papers summary clark ap us history debakey hshp@@AMEPARAM@@/docinfo/3101888?access_key=key-2knvo2e67fk62ptufaaq@@AMEPARAM@@3101888@@AMEPARAM@@key-2knvo2e67fk62ptufaaq[/ame]

There are also easy to find debates and Supreme Court rulings by the founding fathers (yes, John Jay was a SC judge)... google is your friend.

 

[Crunch]

I am serious. Simply point to the message. I looked through the thread, and I don't see it. Simply correct me please.

The READING HELPER is an aid that can be used by both beginning as well as experienced readers who have a problem focusing. Using frames and colored plastic, the READING HELPER allows the reader to easily see the contrast of words on the page therefore increasing the ability to concentrate without distraction. Teachers have seen students improve reading comprehension drastically through the use of one of these devices.

The Reading Helper: How to Improve Reading Ability

You can thank me later.

 

[bicycleman]

Why, boo, he's not a judge.

The Judiciary aren't legislators, either.

 

[Crunch]

The Judiciary aren't legislators, either.

They sure as hell think they are.

 

[bicycleman]

You don't need to go to all of that trouble.... every stage of the writing of the Constitution was covered and debated by the Federalist Papers, and are available for any to read.

http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/poldocs/fed-papers.pdf

For a summary:

the federalist papers summary clark ap us history debakey hshp

There are also easy to find debates and Supreme Court rulings by the founding fathers (yes, John Jay was a SC judge)... google is your friend.

Now, you really killed his new game. He wanted to play 20 questions again.

 

[Whip Comes Down]

Show us where the authors of the Federalist Papers, or any of the lawmakers engaged in making the Constitution, ever said the Federalist Papers should be our guide to interpreting the Constitution.

 

[bicycleman]

Show us where the authors of the Federalist Papers, or any of the lawmakers engaged in making the Constitution, ever said the Federalist Papers should be our guide to interpreting the Constitution.

Somebody needs to change the record. It keeps skipping over and over.

Oh, that's the predecessor of tapes, cassettes, and CD's for all you yuppie children.

 

[Crunch]

Show us where the authors of the Federalist Papers, or any of the lawmakers engaged in making the Constitution, ever said the Federalist Papers should be our guide to interpreting the Constitution.

Do you know what the Federalist Papers are?..... did you read them?

Of course the answer to both of those questions are "NO", or you wouldn't have asked in the first place.

Bye Troll.

 

[EpicDude86]

Bye Troll.

Finally, someone else stops feeding the troll.

 

[Whip Comes Down]

Do you know what the Federalist Papers are?

Yep. I also know that they contain considerable evidence regarding the methodology the lawmakers assumed, or took for granted, would be used to interpret the Constitution.

The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Debates in the State Conventions on Ratification of the Federal Constitution also contain a wealth of information regarding the methodology the lawmakers assumed, or took for granted, would be used to interpret the Constitution.

 

[bicycleman]

Yep.

Yep, every word. I also have them memorized.

Go ahead. Cite them word for word.

Watch him folks start copying and pasting. PC's are just awesome. I just can't get over how they have revolutionized the world.

 

[Crunch]

Finally, someone else stops feeding the troll.

I only feed the trolls when it works toward my larger goals. :mrgreen:

 

[Whip Comes Down]

James Madison's Notes of the Constitutional Convention (Aug. 17, 1787)

“To constitute inferior tribunals” agreed to nem. con.

“To make rules as to captures on land & water”- do do

“To declare the law and punishment of piracies and felonies &c” &c considered.

Mr. (Madison) moved to strike out “and punishment” &c-

Mr. Mason doubts the safety of it, considering the strict rule of construction in criminal cases. He doubted also the propriety of taking the power in all these cases wholly from the States.

Mr Governr Morris thought it would be necessary to extend the authority farther, so as to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting in general. Bills of exchange for example might be forged in one State and carried into another:

It was suggested by some other member that foreign paper might be counterfeited by Citizens; and that it might be politic to provide by national authority for the punishment of it.

Mr Randolph did not conceive that expunging “The punishment” would be a constructive exclusion of the power. He doubted only the efficacy of the word “declare”.

Mr Wilson was in favor of the motion- Strictness was not necessary in giving authority to enact penal laws; though necessary in enacting & expounding them.

On motion for striking out “and punishment” as moved by Mr (Madison)

N. H. no. Mas. ay. Ct no. Pa ay. Del. ay- Md no. Va. ay. N- C- ay. S- C. ay- Geo. ay. [Ayes — 7; noes — 3.]
​

Why do you suppose George Mason didn't consult the Federalist Papers to ascertain the meaning of the proposed words? Why do you suppose he consulted the "strict rule of construction in criminal cases?" Do you suppose there were other rules of construction?

Note: George Mason wasn't a lawyer, but even he knew that there were rules of construction and he took for granted that they would be used to ascertain the meaning of the Constitution.

Mason didn't have a correct understanding of the rule. However, future Supreme Court Justice, James Wilson, a well trained lawyer, knew the correct rule.

 

[bicycleman]

A new game has begun.

 

[Benzin388]

Go ahead. Cite them word for word.

Watch him folks start copying and pasting. PC's are just awesome. I just can't get over how they have revolutionized the world.

Boy, his middle finger must be killing him. Unless he has a left handed mouse, then we have a whole slew of new issues on our hands than a little troll infestation. :fueltofir

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Funny - all this "Federalist Papers" talk.

In Federalist #78 Alexander Hamilton described the judiciary as the branch which is "least dangerous" to political rights and that the judiciary "has no influence over either the sword [president] or the purse [congress]." He went on to say that the judiciary branch has "neither force nor will, but merely judgment," and as a result it is "beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power." Because of this "liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone."

Haha - how funny ... because all that's bull****, now isn't it?

Obviously things have changed since Hamilton's time. . . .which is why the Federalist Papers are only occasioned in reference, and not a founding document to adhere to in and of itself.

 

[EpicDude86]

Yep. I also know that they contain considerable evidence regarding the methodology the lawmakers assumed, or took for granted, would be used to interpret the Constitution.

The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Debates in the State Conventions on Ratification of the Federal Constitution also contain a wealth of information regarding the methodology the lawmakers assumed, or took for granted, would be used to interpret the Constitution.

Whip Comes Down,

In fealty to the God-Emperor of DP, our undying Lord Vauge, and by the grace of the Debate Throne, in the name of the Ordo Epicus and the Inquisition, I call thee trollis, and in the testimony of thy crimes, I submit this carta. May DP Justice account in all balance.


Vauge protects.

 

[political_debater]

Regulated Capitalism and a Social Safety Net is the way to go, bro.

I'd like an explanation from where you libs stand on this and would like some answers about regulated capitalism and total government.

Do you think there's anything, any industry that should be left alone from government intrusion(besides priavy or whatever)?

There libs who want a so-called fairness-doctrine for talk-radio(presumbly conservatives).

There libs who want national health-care(not at city local level like fire and police department, but at federal).

There libs who want to regulate certain food to prevent obesity.

There libs who want to regulate the economy and control which cars you drive and how much electricity you have and which lightbulbs you use.

There even libs who want to nationalize grocery-stores, probably Michael Moore dream.