For all the constitutionalists...

[Tim]

For all the constitutionalists...

I hear it over and over again, how we as a nation need to follow the constitution. That we have strayed from the vision our founding fathers had when they wrote the constitution. Is that your view on it as well?
Do you think we should live by the constitution as it was written and if it's not in there, then we shouldn't be doing it?


Let's look at it this way...

On June 21st 1788 the US Constitution was ratified. On that date, the constitution was the law of the land. As cases came before the supreme court and decisions were handed down, they also became law of the land. These laws are just as relevant as the constitution is, if not more.
Fast forward 222 years to today and we live under the constitution with it's 27 amendments AND supreme court precedent. It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with any of the items in the constitution or any of the amendments or any of the supreme court precedents, they are still the law of the land today. So to say we need to get back to a constitutional government, how would you propose we do that seeing how precedent is just as binding as the original constitution is?
And before you suggest that we overturn any of the supreme courts rulings, understand that it is near impossible.

So with this understanding, do the cries for going back to a constitutional government fall under the category of bullshit talking points? Or is it just a matter of people not understanding how our laws work?

 

[Minor Axis]

This Newsweek Article I posted in my Constitution thread touches on this issue- the ramifications of returning to a (for lack of a better word) purist Constitutional government. Could it be done without breaking the system? And do we really want to go there? I know the local Libertarians will say absolutely. I have serious doubts.

 

[Tim]

This Newsweek Article I posted in my Constitution thread touches on this issue- the ramifications of returning to a (for lack of a better word) purist Constitutional government. Could it be done without breaking the system? And do we really want to go there? I know the local Libertarians will say absolutely. I have serious doubts.

But that's just it, we can't go back. You cannot just throw out 222 years of court precedent. It can't be done.

 

[pjbleek]

For all the constitutionalists...

I hear it over and over again, how we as a nation need to follow the constitution. That we have strayed from the vision our founding fathers had when they wrote the constitution. Is that your view on it as well?
Do you think we should live by the constitution as it was written and if it's not in there, then we shouldn't be doing it?


Let's look at it this way...

On June 21st 1788 the US Constitution was ratified. On that date, the constitution was the law of the land. As cases came before the supreme court and decisions were handed down, they also became law of the land. These laws are just as relevant as the constitution is, if not more.
Fast forward 222 years to today and we live under the constitution with it's 27 amendments AND supreme court precedent. It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with any of the items in the constitution or any of the amendments or any of the supreme court precedents, they are still the law of the land today. So to say we need to get back to a constitutional government, how would you propose we do that seeing how precedent is just as binding as the original constitution is?
And before you suggest that we overturn any of the supreme courts rulings, understand that it is near impossible.

So with this understanding, do the cries for going back to a constitutional government fall under the category of bullshit talking points? Or is it just a matter of people not understanding how our laws work?

I think it is something old that has come up time and time again in history.(just under different names and different sets of ideologies) The Progressives and the Populist party were not new in their thinking that the government should be back into the people's hands, but doesn't the best form of government live inside of government itself? We as a people have to respect the three branches of government and allow them to do what is best for our way of life, isn't this why we have elections? Besides what truly are the beliefs of the Republicans, Democrats, Tea Party, etc. and would these peoples if elected to state, federal governments would follow their parties teachings to the nth degree?

 

[JanieDough]

I think no matter what political agenda you can find roots in the constitution.

It's intentionally vague so that we as a nation may interpret it as we wish.


Anyone who claims to be a constitutionalist desires to be a traditionalist, but is as correct as any "activist."

 

[Azazel]

 

[Accountable]

For all the constitutionalists...

I hear it over and over again, how we as a nation need to follow the constitution. That we have strayed from the vision our founding fathers had when they wrote the constitution. Is that your view on it as well? Absolutely.
Do you think we should live by the constitution as it was written and if it's not in there, then we shouldn't be doing it? Complete the idea. If it's not in there then we shouldn't be doing it now. If we should be doing it, then we should do it the right way - by installing an amendment. That way it would be in the Constitution, which we should live by.


Let's look at it this way...

On June 21st 1788 the US Constitution was ratified. On that date, the constitution was the law of the land. As cases came before the supreme court and decisions were handed down, they also became law of the land. These laws are just as relevant as the constitution is, if not more. Far, far less. FDR packed the court and passed laws that the previous court had already declared unconstitutional. Such abuses should be redressed. This isn't the only example, just the first one that popped into my head.

Fast forward 222 years to today and we live under the constitution with it's 27 amendments AND supreme court precedent. It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with any of the items in the constitution or any of the amendments or any of the supreme court precedents, they are still the law of the land today. So to say we need to get back to a constitutional government, how would you propose we do that seeing how precedent is just as binding as the original constitution is?
And before you suggest that we overturn any of the supreme courts rulings, understand that it is near impossible. When something is right and proper it shouldn't be abandoned simply because it is difficult. We'd still have slavery if everyone took your stance.

So with this understanding, do the cries for going back to a constitutional government fall under the category of bullshit talking points? Or is it just a matter of people not understanding how our laws work? Your premises are wrong. Unload your questions, because those are not the only two options.

 

[Alien Allen]

one huge step would be to have the ruling on the commerce clause overturned

that gave the feds almost unlimited powers given the way it was interpreted

 

[Minor Axis]

Besides what truly are the beliefs of the Republicans, Democrats, Tea Party, etc. and would these peoples if elected to state, federal governments would follow their parties teachings to the nth degree?

Apparently Rand Paul can't make up his mind if he is for earmarks or not. The Libertarian says no. The elected official waffles.

one huge step would be to have the ruling on the commerce clause overturned

that gave the feds almost unlimited powers given the way it was interpreted

Why would this be better?

I'm curious, who here thinks we would have been better off if no money had been injected into the economy after the bubble burst? Would we be better off today or would the economy be a smoking ruin? Honestly I don't know. I do know that throwing money at the greedy bastards who orchistrated the problem while telling average citizens tough shit is not a balancd approach, as if we expect average citizens to be responsible, but place no such requirement on big business. They get a pass. It's Republican thinking through and through.

 

[Alien Allen]

Why would this be better?

I'm curious, who here thinks we would have been better off if no money had been injected into the economy after the bubble burst? Would we be better off today or would the economy be a smoking ruin? Honestly I don't know. I do know that throwing money at the greedy bastards who orchistrated the problem while telling average citizens tough shit is not a balancd approach, as if we expect average citizens to be responsible, but place no such requirement on big business. They get a pass. It's Republican thinking through and through.

the commerce clause took away tons of power from the states

we were not meant to be a federalist nation

States were supposed to have more powers

 

[Minor Axis]

the commerce clause took away tons of power from the states

we were not meant to be a federalist nation

States were supposed to have more powers

I'm trying to see why this would be better? As a country do we want to be going in 50 directions or be more centralized in our efforts? Is there any country who functions in the manner you are proposing?

 

[Alien Allen]

I'm trying to see why this would be better? As a country do we want to be going in 50 directions or be more centralized in our efforts? Is there any country who functions in the manner you are proposing?

take a look at this ruling and tell me why the feds had any interest in getting involved in this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn



only thing I can think of is a power grab

there are certain things that we need a central control of but it has gotten out of hand. For example education. Most people if they have the money will choose to live in an area with good schools. The same could be applied to states. If you do not like what your state is doing you can move. If on the other hand you do not like what your country is doing you have no options other than to take the drastic measure of moving out of the country.

 

[Tim]

Since you tried to answer my post I'll try to clarify my point.


I hear it over and over again, how we as a nation need to follow the constitution. That we have strayed from the vision our founding fathers had when they wrote the constitution. Is that your view on it as well? Absolutely.
I also believe that we should follow the constitution as closely as possible, after all it's the basis for all of our laws. But this isn't the point of my post nor is it the reason for the thread. See below...

Do you think we should live by the constitution as it was written and if it's not in there, then we shouldn't be doing it? Complete the idea. If it's not in there then we shouldn't be doing it now. If we should be doing it, then we should do it the right way - by installing an amendment. That way it would be in the Constitution, which we should live by.
Here is where you almost get my point but not quite, so let me clarify my point of this thread...
The constitution IS the basis from which all laws are measured and judged as to constitutionality. I think this is something we all agree on. But when people say we should go back to following the constitution, they are completely forgetting about the past 200 plus years of supreme court precedent. And this is my whole point of the thread, precedent cannot be thrown out, it cannot be ignored and is very rarely overturned. But supreme court precedent IS as much the law of the land as the constitution is. Let me repeat that last statement, Precedent IS as much the law as the constitution is.


Let's look at it this way...

On June 21st 1788 the US Constitution was ratified. On that date, the constitution was the law of the land. As cases came before the supreme court and decisions were handed down, they also became law of the land. These laws are just as relevant as the constitution is, if not more. Far, far less. FDR packed the court and passed laws that the previous court had already declared unconstitutional. Such abuses should be redressed. This isn't the only example, just the first one that popped into my head.
Here is the problem, the supreme court almost NEVER goes back and overturns or readdresses previous cases. Precedent is almost as hard to change as the constitution itself. If you ever get a chance to look into it, you will see that the courts almost never goes back on previous rulings except in extreme cases like slavery as you mention below.

Fast forward 222 years to today and we live under the constitution with it's 27 amendments AND supreme court precedent. It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with any of the items in the constitution or any of the amendments or any of the supreme court precedents, they are still the law of the land today. So to say we need to get back to a constitutional government, how would you propose we do that seeing how precedent is just as binding as the original constitution is?
And before you suggest that we overturn any of the supreme courts rulings, understand that it is near impossible. When something is right and proper it shouldn't be abandoned simply because it is difficult. We'd still have slavery if everyone took your stance.

So with this understanding, do the cries for going back to a constitutional government fall under the category of bullshit talking points? Or is it just a matter of people not understanding how our laws work? Your premises are wrong. Unload your questions, because those are not the only two options.
Does my above question read differently now that I clarified my point? Our laws are based on the constitution, amendments and precedent. All are near set in stone, all carry the same weight and we as a nation cannot just choose to abandon any one of them like those who want to "go back" to the constitution want.

 

[Tim]

take a look at this ruling and tell me why the feds had any interest in getting involved in this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn



only thing I can think of is a power grab

there are certain things that we need a central control of but it has gotten out of hand. For example education. Most people if they have the money will choose to live in an area with good schools. The same could be applied to states. If you do not like what your state is doing you can move. If on the other hand you do not like what your country is doing you have no options other than to take the drastic measure of moving out of the country.

You disagree with this ruling, right? Well whether we agree or disagree with certain rulings has no bearing on the point of this thread. My point goes to the fact that this case like many others set precedent, and that precedent became law of the land. As a matter of fact, this precedent holds as much weight as any part of the constitution. Now we can sit here and argue all day long whether we think this is constitutional or not, but again, that's not my point. My point is that this precedent is now as much a part of our nation as the constitution is.

 

[mazHur]

Unlike UK, the US constitution is RIGID. Even if majority wanted to change it the Supreme court will disallow unsuitable amendments. Any student of political science or comparative constitutions or governments can tell ya the pros and cons of different kinds of Constitutions...one constitution wouldn't suit conditions prevailing in another country...........and vice versa. India being the largest democracy in the world follows the British Parliamentary system wherein President has minor role, major functionary being the Prime Minister!

 

[Alien Allen]

You disagree with this ruling, right? Well whether we agree or disagree with certain rulings has no bearing on the point of this thread. My point goes to the fact that this case like many others set precedent, and that precedent became law of the land. As a matter of fact, this precedent holds as much weight as any part of the constitution. Now we can sit here and argue all day long whether we think this is constitutional or not, but again, that's not my point. My point is that this precedent is now as much a part of our nation as the constitution is.

Not all precedent is good though

and there are examples where earlier precedent is overturned

the latest example being with regard to campaign money and businesses

 

[retro]

Legal precedents, much like laws, can be overturned. Thus, the decision of the Supreme Court could still be found unconstitutional by a later court.

 

[JanieDough]

Legal precedents, much like laws, can be overturned. Thus, the decision of the Supreme Court could still be found unconstitutional by a later court.

You mean by a different set of Supreme Court judges later on down the line right?

Kind of what I was saying - what is considered "constitutional" is meant to chance with the times, and always will as different waves of people interpret it differently - most of whom claim to be constitutionalists...and also blame the others for being "activists."

It's kind of ridiculous.

 

[pjbleek]

I still think that Supreme Court justices should have term limits

 

[Kyle B]

I like that idea. Max of 20 years.