What is your philosophy regarding the U.S. Constitution?

[Master PO]

Why do you think that happened? It happened because that is what most of the voters wanted. Good for them.

wrong!...bad for them.....becuase democratic governments are full of faction/specil interest ...you eventually end up with special interest controlling the government, as madison says.

democratic forms of government are not stable and vile!



The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter

 

[SmartCat]

the u.s. moved away from a mixed government with the 17th AMENDMENT in 1913....BUT IT WAS NOT CREATED A DEMOCRATIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT

PROGRESSIVE PRESIDENT Woodrow Wilson, in Division and Reunion (pg 12), wrote that "The Federal government was not by intention a democratic government. In plan and in structure it had been meant to check the sweep and power of popular majorities..." 27 Professor John D. Hicks in his book on The Federal Union said "Such statements could be multiplied almost at will." 28

So what? Woodrow Wilson also introduced Jim Crow employment in the Federal Government.

 

[SmartCat]

More wisdom from Eisenhower: "It is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution."

 

[Master PO]

More wisdom from Eisenhower: "It is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution."

what does this have to do with the powers of the constitution....nothing!

 

[Master PO]

So what? Woodrow Wilson also introduced Jim Crow employment in the Federal Government.

amazing isn't it.....PROGRESSIVE PRESIDENT HE WAS

 

[SmartCat]

amazing isn't it.....PROGRESSIVE PRESIDENT HE WAS

He did good things and bad things.

 

[SmartCat]

what does this have to do with the powers of the constitution....nothing!

The Constitution has retained its power, and indeed its existence, because the Supreme Court has heeded President Eisenhower's advice.

 

[Master PO]

The Constitution has retained its power, and indeed its existence, because the Supreme Court has heeded President Eisenhower's advice.

so Eisenhower knows the constitution better then the founders and the USSC THINKS THAT.

 

[Jack Hays]

No, "it" is not self-evident but to the contrary, "it" is axiomatic the Chief Justice's remark is not correct. Neither the Chief Justice's statement or your defense of his remark is ineluctable.

With all due respect, I'll go with Charles Evans Hughes on this one.

 

[SmartCat]

so Eisenhower knows the constitution better then the founders and the USSC THINKS THAT.

President Eisenhower understood contemporary political realities better than the "founders." He knew that if the Constitution was interpreted the way you want it to be it would be replaced quickly.

The Constitution is not the Absolute Truth. It is not eternal. It is nothing more than a way to organize a representative democracy. If it stands in the way of public opinion it will be pushed out of the way.

 

[Master PO]

President Eisenhower understood contemporary political realities better than the "founders." He knew that if the Constitution was interpreted the way you want it to be it would be replaced quickly.

then he violated his oath" preserve protect and defend...

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States

 

[SmartCat]

then he violated his oath" preserve protect and defend...

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States

As I have said the Constitution is open to diverse interpretations. I think it was Eisenhower who said, "The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means."

 

[Jack Hays]

As I have said the Constitution is open to diverse interpretations. I think it was Eisenhower who said, "The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means."

If Eisenhower said it he was quoting Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is."

 

[Master PO]

As I have said the Constitution is open to diverse interpretations. I think it was Eisenhower who said, "The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means."

then that would make the USSC a dictatorship.

 

[NotreDame]

With all due respect, I'll go with Charles Evans Hughes on this one.

Your statement makes no sense. Titles of people do not render as accurate or correct their opinion and assertions. Yes, believe it or not, people with fancy titles have been shown to be wrong in their opinions and assertions.

Let me know when you actually make a lucid, logical, and rational argument.

 

[NotreDame]

As I have said the Constitution is open to diverse interpretations. I think it was Eisenhower who said, "The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means."

For some provisions, this is a true statement. For other provisions, however, your comment is demonstrably false. I highlighted just a few provisions, by paraphrasing the provisions, in which your assertion is demonstrably false.

 

[Jack Hays]

Your statement makes no sense. Titles of people do not render as accurate or correct their opinion and assertions. Yes, believe it or not, people with fancy titles have been shown to be wrong in their opinions and assertions.

Let me know when you actually make a lucid, logical, and rational argument.

I have tried to be kind. You apparently don't get that. I think Hughes is credible. I think you are not.

 

[NotreDame]

I have tried to be kind. You apparently don't get that. I think Hughes is credible. I think you are not.

Yep, and apparently you "don't get" that your reasoning is fallacious. Even your remark above is irrational. Credibility is an issue where someone has a history of lying, a history of omitting the truth, a history of deception.

Your above remark is nothing more than, "I cannot articulate a lucid, logical, and rational argument. It is easier to play the credibility card." So, when your argument is devoid of any rational thought, play the credibility card.

You haven't made any sense with your remakes. None. What next? "The Chief Justice graduated from Harvard. So he must be right because you graduated from Notre Dame and Harvard is better." That statement is in the realm of possibility of statements you could make next, as it is consistent with your prior remarks, and as flawed as hell in a parallel manner as your statement.

Hit me with another vacuous post.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yep, and apparently you "don't get" that your reasoning is fallacious. Even your remark above is irrational. Credibility is an issue where someone has a history of lying, a history of omitting the truth, a history of deception.

Your above remark is nothing more than, "I cannot articulate a lucid, logical, and rational argument. It is easier to play the credibility card." So, when your argument is devoid of any rational thought, play the credibility card.

You haven't made any sense with your remakes. None. What next? "The Chief Justice graduated from Harvard. So he must be right because you graduated from Notre Dame and Harvard is better." That statement is in the realm of possibility of statements you could make next, as it is consistent with your prior remarks, and as flawed as hell in a parallel manner as your statement.

Hit me with another vacuous post.

Yes, I admit it. I assign more weight to the view of a former Chief justice of the United States, uncontradicted by any of his successors, than I do to your view.

 

[SmartCat]

For some provisions, this is a true statement. For other provisions, however, your comment is demonstrably false. I highlighted just a few provisions, by paraphrasing the provisions, in which your assertion is demonstrably false.

I have not said anything false. I simply have different values, concerns, and goals than you do.

What I have stated, and what you do not seem to care about, is that your interpretation of the Constitution is unpopular with the voters.

Correct me if I am wrong. I believe that you want to restore laissez faire capitalism. You believe that most of the economic and environmental passed during the twentieth century is unconstitutional. It does not seem to matter to you that that economic and environmental legislation has broad popular support. If the legislation was repealed on Constitutional grounds, there would very quickly be a new constitution.

It would be a constitution more to my taste. Unfortunately, millions of elderly people whose lives depend on Social Security and Medicare would die before it was established. They would die because of policies you advocate. Ironically those over the age of 65 usually vote Republican. That would change quickly because of your polices.

 

[NotreDame]

Yes, I admit it. I assign more weight to the view of a former Chief justice of the United States, uncontradicted by any of his successors, than I do to your view.

"Weight" and "credibility" are not the same. And "weight" is useful in certain fields and in regards to certain issues, but not here. Sure, in an area of Physics in which the issue involves some quality of nature then "weight" of the speaker is relevant. However, "weight" of the speaker is not paramount or dispositive of whether some view is correct. The evidence, facts, and logical reasoning, rational thinking, is paramount and more important than "weight." Yet, you've transformed "weight" into this trump card, carrying so much weight as to be superior to facts, evidence, and logical and rational arguments.

And here, where the issue is much more opinion than an issue involving the physical world as in my example, "weight" is less compelling. What matters in this context is, once again, logical and rational reasoning, two qualities conspicuously missing from your argument.

You've transformed "weight" into this notion you do not have to articulate any logical or rational argument, and neither does the justice. That is, once again, as usual, a flawed argument.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

With all due respect, I'll go with Charles Evans Hughes on this one.

And I'll go with the professionally-cited research articles I posted (and which were ostensibly ignored according to his previous comment).

Yes, I admit it. I assign more weight to the view of a former Chief justice of the United States, uncontradicted by any of his successors, than I do to your view.

I don't think the person in question gets it.

I have tried to be kind. You apparently don't get that. I think Hughes is credible. I think you are not.

Ditto.

 

[NotreDame]

And I'll go with the professionally-cited research articles I posted (and which were ostensibly ignored according to his previous comment).



I don't think the person in question gets it.



Ditto.

So cute, the two posters not making any sense finding a common bond of illogical arguments.

The existence of "professionally cited sources" does not render the opinion in those sources as correct. The veracity of the opinion in those sources is based on facts, evidence, logical and rational reasoning. You can repeat "professionally cited sources" but your argument is still flawed. I quickly realized flawed reasoning is part of your charm.

Make a lucid and rational argument as opposed to the ponderous arguments you've espoused.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

So cute, the two posters not making any sense finding a common bond of illogical arguments.

You're being willfully ignorant, not to mention arrogant.

The existence of "professionally cited sources" does not render the opinion in those sources as correct. The veracity of the opinion in those sources is based on facts, evidence, logical and rational reasoning. You can repeat "professionally cited sources" but your argument is still flawed. I quickly realized flawed reasoning is part of your charm.

I stopped taking you seriously when I realized part of your "charm" was hyper-biased and cognitively dissonant ad-hominem fallacies. That was about 50 posts back. eace

 

[NotreDame]

You're being willfully ignorant, not to mention arrogant.



I stopped taking you seriously when I realized part of your "charm" was hyper-biased and cognitively dissonant ad-hominem fallacies. That was about 50 posts back. eace

I may be arrogant but I'm not "willfully ignorant."

It's apparent you do not take anyone seriously who makes sense, and of course can parse your argument as illogical manure.

My position has nothing to do with "hyper-biased" and couldn't qualify as "cognitively dissonant." Further, I did not resort to any ad hominem. You can't even appropriately apply a formal reasoning fallacy.

Your argument is nothing more than a nonsensical, hand counting popularity contest. Your reasoning proceeds under the ridiculous notion "professionally cited sources" means what they have to say is accurate on the basis of the descriptor "professionally cited," which is comical and illogical.

I never took your nonsense seriously, not even 50 posts ago.

Proceed with your popularity contest argument, it's amusing.