• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Who was the Worst Democratic President?

Who is the worst democrat president?

  • Jimmy Carter

    Votes: 16 41.0%
  • Lyndon B. Johnson

    Votes: 8 20.5%
  • Harry S. Truman

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Andrew Johnson

    Votes: 9 23.1%
  • Grover Cleveland

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Woodrow Wilson

    Votes: 5 12.8%

  • Total voters
    39
You can see why because "at the time Reagan was trying to gain back our traditional ally that Carter lost" was more important than avenging the deaths of 241 U.S. marines in Lebanon and demonstrating that kind of action won't be tolerated?

That and although Iran is directly responsible due to their ties to Hezbollah, it is possible that they were acting on their own without Iranian go ahead.
 
Because Saddam added the Kurds to his list of Jews, flies, and Persians.

You just asserted that the genocide against the Kurds was retaliatory in nature.

That is my understanding, that Kurds were separatists and conducted attackes against the Iranian governement. Does that justify what Hussein did to them? Absolutely not.

And their supporters.

OK, so the US govt is locking up folks who are not combatants taken in the field but folks who are accused to being their supporters and locking them away in secret torture dungeons. I'd suppose the Hussein government would say they were doing the same thing.

Like stress positions, waterboarding, solitary confinement, etc., yes in your book anything short of giving them cake and ice cream is torture.

Abu Grave.


Thanks for confirming my suspisions.

Doubts surface ... the doctor who dealt with executed prisoners at Abu Grahib during Saddam Hussein's rule, who said that all executions were performed by hanging, and denied claims that there was a shredder of any type. ... However, the story quickly fell apart. ... We (human shields) have never heard of this Kenneth Joseph, I asked everybody who returned from Bagdad and more, nobody did. We would like to meet Kenneth Joseph and see the 14 hours of video, until then the whole story is false". ... if indeed if he was there at all, appears to have been motivated by his campaign for “Assyrian Independence” rather than the welfare of the Iraqi people in the face of an invasion ... NOTE, written 25th September 2003: It transpires that Kenneth Joseph was probably a bullshitter, and that his claims were false. I should have checked his story out more rigorously before I used it. The full details of the Joseph affair can be found at the excellent Counterpunch website

At least now they have freedom of movement.

Apparently so, if they can make it out before getting killed in the civil war.
 
That is my understanding, that Kurds were separatists and conducted attackes against the Iranian governement. Does that justify what Hussein did to them? Absolutely not.

Yep those Kurds are such separatists that they have refused to break away from the Republic of Iraq when they have the entire worlds support to do just that.

OK, so the US govt is locking up folks who are not combatants taken in the field but folks who are accused to being their supporters and locking them away in secret torture dungeons.

Hyperbolic sophistry, we are locking up terrorists and their collaborators who murder innocent women and children.

I'd suppose the Hussein government would say they were doing the same thing.

No Saddam and his collaborators were the ones murdering innocent women and children.

Abu Grave.

So nude pictures are now the equivalent of torture now?

Thanks for confirming my suspisions.

Doubts surface ... the doctor who dealt with executed prisoners at Abu Grahib during Saddam Hussein's rule, who said that all executions were performed by hanging, and denied claims that there was a shredder of any type. ... However, the story quickly fell apart. ... We (human shields) have never heard of this Kenneth Joseph, I asked everybody who returned from Bagdad and more, nobody did. We would like to meet Kenneth Joseph and see the 14 hours of video, until then the whole story is false". ... if indeed if he was there at all, appears to have been motivated by his campaign for “Assyrian Independence” rather than the welfare of the Iraqi people in the face of an invasion ... NOTE, written 25th September 2003: It transpires that Kenneth Joseph was probably a bullshitter, and that his claims were false. I should have checked his story out more rigorously before I used it. The full details of the Joseph affair can be found at the excellent Counterpunch website

Read on:

Clwyd responded to O'Neill’s allegations in the Guardian on 27th Feb. 2004, stating:
Brendan O'Neill was told by my office, but chose not to include in his article, the following information. In his statement, the witness who said that people were killed by the shredder was very specific: he named individuals who he said were killed in the shredder and the individuals who he said supervised the execution by shredder; he stated where the shredder was located and the month and year when the executions took place. The witness was closely questioned by Indict researchers and was described by them as being "unshakeable". He said he is also prepared to testify in court about the incident.[3]
O'Neill never responded to Clwyd's letter, nor the offer of corroboration


Apparently so, if they can make it out before getting killed in the civil war.

Last time I checked civil wars don't have coalition governments composed of the supposed warring factions. The situation in Iraq doesn't meet any of the qualifications of a civil war.

1. The contestants must control territory.

2. They must have a functioning government.

3. They must enjoy some foreign recognition.

4. They must have identifiable regular armed forces.

5. They must engage in major military operations.
 
That's just parsing terms as you fail to recognize the difference between fending off an invasion and attacking a nation that couldn't hurt us if it was all they wanted to do.

Then explain the DOCEX memo proving that Saddam was recruiting suicide volunteers to attack U.S. interests. Regardless do you think it was wise to wait for Germany and Japan to become as powerful as they were before we went to war with them?

Instead Iran is more powerful than it ever was before because they're exploiting the fact that we are militarily incapacitated both by resource limitation and political realities,

Iraqis are by and large in far more destitute than they ever were under Hussein,

Bullshit, millions were dying under the sanctions because Saddam was using the oil for food money to build himself lavish palaces instead of food.

ore Iraqis have died than Saddam could've killed if he lived to be a hundred,

Bullshit, exponentially more Iraqi's were killed in Iraq's war of aggression against Iran alone not to mention the thousands upon thousands killed in such Jewels as the al-Anfal campaign.

and we have absolutely no international political capital as it has all been squandered! And don't make me laugh about the WMD's, Saddam Hussein was a two bit hack who would never in a million years pose a threat to us.

We found the ****ing programs!

And? Other wars were for survival, this is for crazed ideology! I can't believe a human being could be so disconnected from reality that he could actually view half a trillion dollars and over a hundred thousand lives in the name of an ideology that CLEARLY is about as effective at achieving its goal as communism (which is fitting considering the movement was started by Trotskyites) as cheap!

Yep support for liberal pluralist democracies as opposed to tyrannical tyrannies of the minority, is a crazed ideology! :roll: Nice Red Baiting by the way.

And? Why the **** is that any of our concern?

Are you a member of the human race? Are you asserting that life and liberty are only entitlements of Americans?

That's insane, those insurgents were motivated and enabled to do what they've done DIRECTLY because of our specific actions and inactions, by your logic here if I shot you I wouldn't be responsible because all I did was pull a trigger, the ignition inside the casing is what actually sent the bullet flying at you.

The problem is you're trying to blame the gun manufacturer and not the person pulling the trigger.

What threat did Saddam Hussein pose?

He was an irrational mad man sitting on billions of oil the question is what threat didn't he pose?

I'm all about being proactive, but there's a HUGE difference between being proactive in the protection of our own nation, and something completely different to bankrupting our nation of every form of capital imaginable and killing hundreds of thousands for the purpose of fulfilling an insane ideology that will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER work!

We've killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's? How did Billo get Galen's computer.

Buying the freedom of 25 million people? If that's what you see when you look at what's happened as a product of our actions in Iraq you're 100% completely detached from reality.

So you're asserting that the Iraqi's haven't been liberated from the Baathist tyranny? The last time I checked they have a Constitutional representative republic, what is that if not freedom?
 
FDR's legacy is the worst ever. The huge increase of the federal government was due to him. Of course if you are a welfare-socialist than FDR would be the greatest because FDR, and his judges, destroyed the Tenth Amendment

Everything you've described turned out to be a good thing, especially his ability to assist in morphing the 10th Amendment to fit with modern times and needs.
 
If by "assisting in morphing the 10th amendment to fit modern times and needs" you mean stacking the court with absolutely no regard for constitutional law until he created a supreme court precedent of completely ignoring the constitution, then yeah. And obviously, there's nothing wrong with the programs that provide a small stipend to a fraction of the population and take up the VAST majority of the federal budget.

To be fair FDR's court packing attempts failed.
 
Bullshit, millions were dying under the sanctions because Saddam was using the oil for food money to build himself lavish palaces instead of food.

If the Iraqis are so much better off now, then why is there net emigration? One should expect more former Iraqi expatriates to now RETURN to the country, now that Saddam is gone. Instead exactly the opposite is happening.
 
His most overt attempts to get a supreme court willing to follow him instead of the constitution, actually adding more people to the supreme court, failed, but all that changed was the means, he let death do the dirty work for him, all he had to do is stick around long enough and he could appoint judges who don't give a flying **** about the constitution.

Ya but you can't exactly blame him for appointing Justices who shared his views, every President does that.
 
If the Iraqis are so much better off now, then why is there net emigration? One should expect more former Iraqi expatriates to now RETURN to the country, now that Saddam is gone. Instead exactly the opposite is happening.

Umm there would have been mass emigration out of Iraq under Saddam too if it wasn't for the fact that leaving or even requesting to leave would be punished by death or imprisonment, by your logic Russia under Communism was better than Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed as evidenced by the fact that emigration increased after the fall of Communism. Sorry the exact opposite is true it shows that now the people of Iraq and of Russia have that little thing we Americans take for granted IE freedom of movement.
 
Carter by far, and the worst ex-president too.

And I voted for him first time he ran.
 
Carter by far, and the worst ex-president too.

And I voted for him first time he ran.
---
So, not only you voted for the loser lowlife Bush, you say you voted for the, so called by you, the bigest Dem loser too?
---
I guess we can take what you say from now on as 'not worthy to read'

and 'doesn't know how to vote for a winner'!
 
If by "assisting in morphing the 10th amendment to fit modern times and needs" you mean stacking the court with absolutely no regard for constitutional law until he created a supreme court precedent of completely ignoring the constitution, then yeah. And obviously, there's nothing wrong with the programs that provide a small stipend to a fraction of the population and take up the VAST majority of the federal budget.

No. I meant what I said, not what you claimed I said.

I tend to go along with the perceptions of the Constitution as seen by Justices Brandeis and Cardozo. Both saw the Constitution as something needing to be reinterpreted as new situations occur. Brandeis' dissent in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann shows this (ex: 'It is as impossible as flying.' ) and Cardozo wrote in The Growth of the Law (1924), 'Code is followed by commentary, and commentary by revision, and thus the task is never done.' Great justices who saw the need of the Constitution to shape and be shaped to meet modern needs.
 
Which all sounds fine and good except when you ask "Exactly what the **** gives that authority and responsibility to the judicial branch?" If updates have to be made, then there is a process by which the constitution can be altered, but there is no honest way to interpret Article 3 of the constitution as empowering them to do that, and for good ****ing reason, because people always overestimate how unique their situation in time is, and thusly overstating the amount of alteration necessary to meet modern standards, and if such alterations are simple, eventually the original document becomes completely meaningless (as we see now, largely impart to an out of control judiciary which can namely be blamed on FDR).

The authority was given twofold. Firstly, in the concept of judicial review. It is the court's responsibility to identify whether a law or decision adheres to the Constitution. This requires legal interpretation when the situation is not specifically addressed in the Constitution. Secondly, changing times and attitudes have shown that different interpretations occur and are necessary. Two specific situations that address this are Plessy v. Ferguson/Brown v. Board of Education and Betts v. Brady/Gideon v. Wainright. The former two cases give different interpretations of the 14th Amendment. The latter two cases give different interpretations and actions of both the 6th and 14th Amendments. The facts that these original decisions were overturned had much to do with societal changes and were appropriate.

And I disagree. It is not unique situations that are being addressed. It is changing situations.
 
---
So, not only you voted for the loser lowlife Bush

As he tries to shift the subject from his beloved Democrats.


By the way you make a fool out of yourself when you profess to know about things which you don't. I never voted for Bush.

So I await your retraction.

, you say you voted for the, so called by you, the bigest Dem loser too?
---
I guess we can take what you say from now on as 'not worthy to read'

and 'doesn't know how to vote for a winner'!

You just made a total idiot out of yourself.

I guess we can take what you say from now on as 'not worthy to read'
 
That and although Iran is directly responsible due to their ties to Hezbollah, it is possible that they were acting on their own without Iranian go ahead.

What a load of total fooking bullshit!


NO it wasn’t acting on its own. The bombing of the US embassy, the French embassy and the Marine barracks where planned out by members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in turn the IRG trained, supplied and funded the Hezbollah .

Anyone who can’t see their connection is a blind fooking idiot!
Hizballah is an Islamic movement founded after the Israeli military seizure of Lebanon in 1982, which resulted in the formation of Islamic resistance units committed to the liberation of the occupied territories and the ejection of Israeli forces. Hizbollah was established in 1982 during the Lebanon War when a group of Lebanese Shi'ite Muslims declared themselves to be the "Party of God" (Hizb Allah, which is clear in Hizbollah but progressively less so in Hizbollah / Hizbullah / Hezbollah). Upon the realization that the IDF was entrenching itself in south Lebanon, and influenced and assisted by 1,500 Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon, Hizballah cells began developing with the immediate desire to resist the Israeli invasion. Hizbollah began establishing its base in Lebanon in 1982 and has expanded and strengthened ever since, primarily due to its wave of suicide bombings and foreign support by Iran and Syria.
Description
Formed in 1982 in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, this Lebanon-based radical Shia group takes its ideological inspiration from the Iranian revolution and the teachings of the late Ayatollah Khomeini. The Majlis al-Shura, or Consultative Council, is the group’s highest governing body and is led by Secretary General Hasan Nasrallah. Hizballah is dedicated to liberating Jerusalem and eliminating Israel, and has formally advocated ultimate establishment of Islamic rule in Lebanon. Nonetheless, Hizballah has actively participated in Lebanon’s political system since 1992. This radical Shia is dedicated to creation of Iranian-style Islamic republic in Lebanon and removal of all non-Islamic influences from area. It is strongly anti-Western and anti-Israeli.

A very important factor that developed Hizballah was the establishment of the Islamic Revolution in Iran that was led by the Imam Khomeini. This revolution consolidated new concepts in the field of Islamic thought mainly the concept of Willayat Al-Faqih. The revolution also generalized Islamic expressions against the west such as arrogance, the great Satan, hypocrites and the oppressed. Due to that it was only normal for the ideological doctrine in Iran to take root in Lebanon. This tie was very quickly translated on the ground by direct support from the Islamic Republic of Iran through its revolutionary guards and then to Hizballah that was resisting the Israeli occupation. This religious and ideological tie between Hizballah and Iran following the revolution with its stance towards the Zionist entity had a great effect on releasing vital material and moral support to Hizballah. Hizballah’s ideological ideals sees no legitimacy for the existence of Israel, a matter that elevates the contradictions to the level of existence. And the conflict becomes one of legitimacy that is based on religious ideals. The seed of resistance is also deep in the ideological beliefs of Hizballah, a belief that found its way for expression against the occupation of Lebanon.

Activities

Once established as a militia, Hizbollah received acclaim and legitimacy in Lebanon and throughout the Muslim world by fighting against IDF and SLA troops. In fact, since 1988 Hizbollah replaced Amal (the other prominent Shi'ite organization in Lebanon) as the predominant force due to its activity against Israel. Over the years Hizbollah military operations have grown to include attacking IDF and SLA outposts, ambushing convoys, laying explosive devices booby-trapping cars, and launching long range mortar shells and Katyusha rockets at IDF outposts and into Israel proper.
Between the spring of 1983 to the summer of 1985 the Hizballah launched an unprecedented wave of suicide bombings which included an attack on the US embassy and at a US Marine base in Beirut. Known or suspected to have been involved in numerous anti-US terrorist attacks, including the suicide truck bombing of the US Embassy and US Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983 and the US Embassy Annex in Beirut in September 1984. Elements of the group were responsible for the kidnapping and detention of US and other Western hostages in Lebanon. The group also attacked the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in 1992.

External Aid

Hizballah was established by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who came to Lebanon during the 1982 "Peace for Galilee" war, as part of the policy of exporting the Islamic revolution. It receives substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid from Iran and Syria. Published reports that Iran provides hundreds million dollars of aid annually are probably exaggerated. Iran probably provides financial assistance and military assistance worth about $25-50 million.
Hizballah is closely allied with, and often directed by, Iran but has the capability and willingness to act independently. Closely allied with, and often directed by Iran, it may have conducted operations that were not approved by Tehran. Though Hizballah does not share the Syrian regime’s secular orientation, the group has been a strong ally in helping Syria advance its political objectives in the region.
Hizballah (Party of God)


Inspired by the Iranian Revolution of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Hezbollah was formed in 1982 with the aid of at least 1,500 Iranian Revolutionary Guards; its immediate priority was to fight the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) that occupied Lebanon at the time, and to help spread Khomeini's Revolution across the Muslim world. Embracing the distinctly Shiite Islamist ideology developed by Khomeini, Hezbollah gradually coalesced and grew when a number of Shiite groups -- such as Islamic Jihad, the Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, and the Revolutionary Justice Organization -- were assimilated into it. By 1988 Hezbollah had replaced Amal as the predominant Shiite force in Lebanon. Its base of operation is in Lebanon's Shiite-dominated areas, including parts of Beirut, southern Lebanon, and the Bekaa Valley. Moreover, U.S. intelligence reports say that Hezbollah has set up working cells in Europe, Africa, South America, and North America.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6256


In the early days, Hizbullah gained much notoriety through the kidnappings of several westerners by one of its fringe groups. But what caused most political consternation were the quite spectacular actions against various foreign occupants by its predecessors. The bombing of the barracks of the US Marines and French headquarters in 1983 killed 300 soldiers of the Multinational Force that by then had lost its semblance of neutrality of intervention in the punishing Israeli siege and occupation of West Beirut. That humiliation led the US to lose its nerve in trying to police the conflict which no longer was restricted to an Israeli - Palestinian matter, with force. The subsequent bombing of the "Israeli Defence Forces" headquarters in Tyre with 75 soldiers lost took its toll on Israeli resolve and led t
Hizbullah - the Party of God


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iran is responsible for the 1983 suicide bombing of a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 241 American servicemen, a U.S. District Court judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth said the suicide truck bombing was carried out by the group Hezbollah with the approval and funding of Iran's senior government officials.

Lamberth ordered that the plaintiffs in the case -- the servicemen wounded in that bombing and the families of those killed -- have a "right to obtain judicial relief" from Iran. The judge called the October 23, 1983 bombing "the most deadly state-sponsored terrorist attack made against United States citizens before September 11, 2001."

snip..........

Hezbollah is blamed for anti-Western and anti-Israeli terrorist acts dating from the early 1980s and is on the U.S. State Department's official list of terrorist organizations.

A key point in determining the plaintiffs' eligibility to recover damages was the issue of whether the Marines were engaged in combat in their mission to Lebanon. Lamberth said the bulk of the evidence pointed clearly to a peacekeeping mission operating on stringent peacetime rules of engagement.

"As pointed out during trial, the (Marines) were more restricted in their use of force than an ordinary U.S. citizen walking down a street in Washington, D.C.," the judge wrote.

CNN.com - Iran responsible for 1983 Marine barracks bombing, judge rules - May. 30, 2003
 
Which was given to the court by the court

The power of judicial review is an implied power from both Article III and Article VI of the Constitution. These Articles allow the SCOTUS to access the constitutionality of laws. The Constitution is worded in a vague way, so interpretation is necessary. Marbury v. Madison occurred in 1803. I know of now law attempting to eliminate judicial review. It seems Congress has always been OK with this.

No, it is interpretation of legislation as it pertains to the constitution. It's supposed to be the authority to overturn unconstitutional legislation (or legislative failure to fulfill constitutional requirements). It's only a product of this day and age where the constitution is absolutely meaningless that you'd think that judicial review AT ALL empowers the courts to address situations not specifically addressed in the constitution

Judicial review requires legal interpretation of the Constitution to determine if a law or decision that is not expressly discussed in that document is constitutional. This does not make the Constitution meaningless; on the contrary, it makes it timeless.

To say that changes are needed to the fundamental legal document of our society is to say that our society is somehow fundamentally different than it was when the founders wrote the constitution initially.

And society is absolutely fundamentally different than when our founders wrote the Constitution. Travel, warfare, communication, views on race, business. This is nothing like the 1780's.

Now you're talking about whether or not federal rights (rights legally being defined as protections from government) also bound state governments, which is actually within the realm of interpretation. Social Security and Medicare are not. Using the commerce clause to **** with individuals who don't directly participate in interstate commerce is not. Those are not interpretations, those are readings stemming from prizing ideology over the constitution and just finding some bullshit reason to justify it. And the consequence is the constitution's ****ing meaningless, thusly why you would actually suggest that the court has the authority to update the constitution, when in fact judicial review in and of itself is a stretch, let alone judicial review for doing anything other than preventing other branches of government from behaving unconstitutionally.

Firstly, you didn't address the case examples I gave. How can the constitutionality of these cases be so different if constitutional interpretation was not used based on societal changes? For example, Plessy v. Ferguson declared constitutional the practice of 'separate but equal' fitting in with the perception of blacks and racial intermingling of the time (1890's). Brown v. Board of Education declared constitutional the opposite based on the beginnings of civil rights. Two different eras, two different interpretations. This is how the Constitution evolves and has always evolved, and hopefully, always will.
 
Galen, who did the FF give power to in order to interprit the Constitution? The Judicial Branch, ie, the Supreme Court. Yes, they have been wrong before, ie Plessy v. Fergeson. But until Brown v. Board of education, that was the law. It's not a perfect system, but that is what we have. No system is perfect.
 
And nor do I, in its purest sense I'd say judicial review is essential for the judicial branch to fulfill its role as a check on the other two branches.

Agreed.

Which is all fine and good when they're sticking to the actual constitution. What we're talking about here, what happened under FDR, was a bunch of mother****ers who wanted to change the constitution, but as that wasn't politically feasible, they decided to use the Supreme Court to use judicial review to set precedent of saying the constitution says whatever the **** your ideology calls for it to say without any regard for what it actually says. THAT is what we're talking about when you're talking about the court "updating" the constitution, that's not within their powers, especially when you bear in mind there is a process for changing the constitution, and it's difficult for a reason.

You said it yourself. Judicial review was used. Re-interpreting the Constitution to deal with an economic crises as unique as the Great Depression is not something that the founders had anticipated...or if they had, it wasn't address succinctly. Judicial review was used to deal with laws and designate how and if they were in line with the Constitution. Judicial review found that some were and some were not.

And thusly what I was talking about. Yes, there are differences, but as I said, everyone always overestimates their own uniqueness. A lot has changed since the 1780's, but not nearly as much as people think. The federal government is still incompetent, and set up in a manner where being incompetent on everything but the basics (for which it originally existed) is inherent, and an intentional product of the way the constitution was written. The federal government shouldn't be involved in retirement funding because the federal government is inherently incapable of doing so in an effective manner, and had FDR given a **** about the constitution he would've recognized that. Federal welfare is ridiculous and unconstitutional, along with being almost nothing but a waste of money (and we're wasting the VAST majority of our federal budget on two programs that achieve very little because FDR was such a dickface).

I disagree. Not only has the government proven to be very efficient and effective in managing certain areas of society (military, money. postal service, highways, to name a few), but, not only were these laws found constitutional but FDR, the visionary that he was, proposed legislation that helped Americans. Many of the problems one finds on these programs, today, is due to mismanagement by conservatives, bent on destroying these programs. FDR has been one of the only Presidents to work for assisting Americans.

Brown v. Board of Education was not a different interpretation for a different era, as you see it as being so would be to say that Plessy v. Ferguson was the right ruling for that era, when it clearly wasn't. The reason Plessy was overruled in Brown v. Board is because Plessy was wrong, it said the constitutional standard could be met in a system of separate but equal, but as the reality became clear that the constitutional test was not being met, it was clear that the ruling in Plessy was wrong.

You're wrong Galen. Plessy v. Ferguson was found constitutional by SCOTUS based on it's interpretation that Plessy's rights under the 13tha nd 14th Amendments were not violated. This had been predated by the Court's interpretation that the 14th Amendment only applied to government actions, not to private individuals or entities. It is irrelevant as to whether you believe it was 'right' or 'wrong'. It was constitutional at the time based on the Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which, undoubtedly reflected the sentiments of the time.

In Brown v. Board of Education, the Court re-interpreted the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment when recognizing that 'separate but equal' did not follow along with what they interpreted the Amendment to mean. They decided that separate was not equal. Plessy said it was. Different interpretations for different eras.

No, and it is only your disregard for the constitution as an actual document that allows you to see things this way, because if you gave a damn about the actual constitution you'd recognize that there is in the constitution a method by which the constitution can be changed, and that method is not "let a board of 9 unelected officials claim the constitution says whatever they personally want it to say". The Supreme Court is a court of law, not a board of elders.

No, it is your inability to recognize the precedent of judicial review and interpretation as important components to using the Constitution as a document to manage modern problems and issues not covered in that document. I care enough about the Constitution to want it to be used for today's situations. It is the Supreme Court's job to assist with this process. You seem to see it as something rigid with no flexibility. This is not how the Constitution has EVER been used.
 
Galen, the conundrum is that who reviews judicial review? These justices are appointed and approved on their expertise of the Constitution. The Supreme Court decides what is in their jurisdiction and what isn't. If it isn't, then an amendment is the recourse. Yes, it is fallible. It always will be. Humans are fallible.
 
Humans are fallible, the point of the system is to minimize the consequences of said fallibility. Allowing the court to "update" the constitution makes it so that we are no longer a nation of law, but a nation of whims completely free of any consistent philosophical or logical basis, and nations like that fail, which seems to be inevitable as long as people keep the general view point towards the constitution as you and CC.

This is what allowed slavery, misogyny, and homophobia to exist. These things don't exist without whims completely free of consistent philosophical or logic basis.
 
Back
Top Bottom