Republican Judgement

[Tim]

Isn't it shocking that returning the federal gov't to it's constitutional coral would be all but eliminating it, in comparison to its current condition?

You do realize that the constitution itself prevents your Utopian view, right? It would be impossible to erase 220 plus years of supreme court precedent... So how could we "go back" as you propose?

 

[Accountable]

You do realize that the constitution itself prevents your Utopian view, right? It would be impossible to erase 220 plus years of supreme court precedent... So how could we "go back" as you propose?

It's hardly a utopian view. Utopian indicates perfection. Liberty is often disheveled, inconvenient, even ugly.

In what way does the Constitution prevent bringing the federal gov't back within the bounds set by the Constitution??????

 

[Tim]

It's hardly a utopian view. Utopian indicates perfection. Liberty is often disheveled, inconvenient, even ugly.

In what way does the Constitution prevent bringing the federal gov't back within the bounds set by the Constitution??????

To do that, you would need to throw out the thousands of decisions handed down by the supreme court that you don't agree with. And the constitution does not give permission to do so, their verdicts are as much the law of the land as the constitution is. How can you keep one part of the law and discard the other?

And remember, there are many things that YOU disagree with when it comes to how the supreme court interpreted the constitution, but that doesn't mean your version is correct. That's why it's so very important to make sure we don't ever have activist judges. Because as much as I vehemently disagree with the citizens united decision, as of today it's the law of the land with almost no hope of over turning it.... We are talking about a constitutional amendment and we all know how that's next to impossible... so how are you going to do that with thousands of interpretations/decisions???

 

[Accountable]

To do that, you would need to throw out the thousands of decisions handed down by the supreme court that you don't agree with. And the constitution does not give permission to do so, their verdicts are as much the law of the land as the constitution is. How can you keep one part of the law and discard the other?

Where does the Constitution "give permission" to give these thousands of decisions the weight of law? How would that jive with the explicit constitutional directive giving only Congress the power to make law?

And remember, there are many things that YOU disagree with when it comes to how the supreme court interpreted the constitution, but that doesn't mean your version is correct. That's why it's so very important to make sure we don't ever have activist judges. Because as much as I vehemently disagree with the citizens united decision, as of today it's the law of the land with almost no hope of over turning it.... We are talking about a constitutional amendment and we all know how that's next to impossible... so how are you going to do that with thousands of interpretations/decisions???

It's partially these court decisions circumventing constitutional procedures of amendment that have cocked things up. The federal gov't was made to move slowly, so as not to do exactly what Woodrow Wilson opined should happen ... and has happened since. Federal gov't growth and takeover of personal liberty is antithetical to liberty, the very reason for creating the country in the first place.

 

[Accountable]

I spose that since you closed your eyes to the first part of my post then you'll continue to call my opinions "utopian"?

 

[Alien Allen]

The PBS show on Prohibition was something to see.

The steps that led up to it were the start of destroying the constitution.

Before that it was never used to restrict rights.

Which is how it was designed.

Then not that many years later the SC abused their powers to extend the commerce clause beyond anything ever imaginable.

Why is it the liberals think the feds are the great deciders? It was never meant to be that way.

 

[Minor Axis]

I've always thought "pander" meant give lip service to, or say whatever they (the people you're pandering to) want to hear. If that's close enough to the definition you use, then I hope you agree that actions are far more important than words. .

I can't believe you posted this without researching before hand. My meaning was indulge. Not focused on providing sexual services...

pan·der

1. noun /ˈpandər/  panders, plural A person who assists the baser urges or evil designs of others - the lowest panders of a venal press verb /ˈpandər/  pandered, past participle; pandered, past tense; pandering, present participle; panders, 3rd person singular present Gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire, need, or habit or a person with such a desire, etc.) - newspapers are pandering to people's baser instincts

Where does the Constitution "give permission" to give these thousands of decisions the weight of law? How would that jive with the explicit constitutional directive giving only Congress the power to make law?

People wrote the Constitution, people interpret the meaning of the Constitution. You are a school teacher, right?

 

[Accountable]

I can't believe you posted this without researching before hand. My meaning was indulge. Not focused on providing sexual services...

I did look it up first; I was surprised it started as a synonym for pimping.
But you didn't address my point at all. I'd appreciate it if you would.

People wrote the Constitution, people interpret the meaning of the Constitution. You are a school teacher, right?

Again, do you have a point?

 

[CityGirl]

You guys are aware of Thomas Jefferson's opinions regarding the case of Marbury vs. Madison (1804). This is essentially the beginning of judicial legislation. Jefferson warned that giving the Supreme Court sole ultimate power to interpret the Constitution would shift supremacy from the text of the Constitution to the subjective wishes of Supreme Court justices.

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account." -Thomas Jefferson- Letter to Monsieur A. Coray, October 31, 1823

You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. — Thomas Jefferson Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

BUT THE OPINION which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch. —Thomas Jefferson Letter to Mrs. John Adams, Nov. 1804

If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law … — Thomas Jefferson Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819

This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversions on its being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice … . But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but … . The ultimate arbiter is the people …. —Thomas Jefferson Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 1823

 

[Minor Axis]

I've always thought "pander" meant give lip service to, or say whatever they (the people you're pandering to) want to hear. If that's close enough to the definition you use, then I hope you agree that actions are far more important than words. Assuming you agree with that (and there's actually more evidence that you place more importance on words than action) then I beg you to try to look past the words and see that both parties have given trillions of our hard-earned tax dollars to big corporations, regardless of whether they pander to the rich or poor.

Yes they have, BUT political forces are relative and I have to choose someone who I find palatable and has more than a snowballs chance in hell of being elected. The GOPpers as they exist today, from a working class perspective, are just plain evil, and should be run out of town. The Democrats are inept but sympathetic to the working class. So I find it very easy to reject GOP pseudo-morals and go for the inept party until someone better comes along.

I'll give half my tokens if you can find one of your posts where you write a negative criticism about the Democratic Party or Democrats in general without that big negating BUT in it.

So what if I say BUT all the time? Is it used to clarify feelings don't you know, Mr. Teacher.

And yes, actions speak much louder than words, especially lies.

Originally Posted by Minor Axis
People wrote the Constitution, people interpret the meaning of the Constitution. You are a school teacher, right?
Again, do you have a point?
People wrote the Constitution, people interpret the meaning of the Constitution. You are a school teacher, right?

Originally Posted by Accountable

Again, do you have a point?

That was the point... :smiley24: You seem to think the Constitution is a black and white, no interpretation allowed document. Lol.

 

[Minor Axis]

You guys are aware of Thomas Jefferson's opinions regarding the case of Marbury vs. Madison (1804). This is essentially the beginning of judicial legislation. Jefferson warned that giving the Supreme Court sole ultimate power to interpret the Constitution would shift supremacy from the text of the Constitution to the subjective wishes of Supreme Court justices.

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account." -Thomas Jefferson- Letter to Monsieur A. Coray, October 31, 1823

You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. — Thomas Jefferson Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

BUT THE OPINION which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch. —Thomas Jefferson Letter to Mrs. John Adams, Nov. 1804

If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law … — Thomas Jefferson Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819

This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversions on its being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice … . But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but … . The ultimate arbiter is the people …. —Thomas Jefferson Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 1823

Waiting for the Constitutional purists to jump all over this. opcorn2: Of course with the way the current Supreme Court is ruling, I might try to argue against the supremacy of the Supreme Court too.

 

[Alien Allen]

You have not seen me do much defending of the Supreme Court Minor

They have made some abysmal rulings

I still say the one where they ruled on the Commerce Clause was an obscene abuse of the powers they gave to the feds. So many other liberties have been curbed as a result of that. And all because a farmer wanted to grow more than the feds allowed for his own in state use. Fucking absurd

And as much as I am an extreme abortion rights supporter I think that was a similar stretch to deal with that issue

Unfortunately Congress has made some idiotic laws that were left open to interpretation. Both on the liberal and conservative side

 

[Accountable]

You guys are aware of Thomas Jefferson's opinions regarding the case of Marbury vs. Madison (1804). This is essentially the beginning of judicial legislation. Jefferson warned that giving the Supreme Court sole ultimate power to interpret the Constitution would shift supremacy from the text of the Constitution to the subjective wishes of Supreme Court justices.

Hey, I learned something brand new today. Thanks! I've printed the quotes to read later.

 

[Accountable]

Yes they have, but political forces are relative and I have to choose someone who I find palatable and has more than a snowballs chance in hell of being elected.

So you prefer to vote for the liar whose lies you agree with, even though you know them to be lies, because you would rather your vote go for someone who is likely to win rather than vote for the person you'd rather see in office?

The GOPpers as they exist today, from a working class perspective, are just plain evil, and should be run out of town. The Democrats are inept but sympathetic to the working class. So I find it very easy to reject GOP pseudo-morals and go for the inept party until someone better comes along.

you contradict yourself. If someone "better" comes along, you won't/haven't voted for him/her because they have to be both "palatable and has more than a snowballs chance in hell of being elected." That takes out anybody not blessed by the party you call inept-but.
If everyone would vote for the person they feel is best available for the job, rather than the lesser of two evils, then maybe we would get the best person available for the job, rather than evil.

So what if I say but all the time? Is it used to clarify feelings don't you know, Mr. Teacher.

No, it's not. It is used to negate the previous statement before rationalizing a negative action or emotion. "I know she's married, BUT we're in love." "I know it's illegal, BUT I need the money." "I think they're inept, BUT one of the other guys is worse."
So you see, all of these time you claim to criticize the Dems, you were actually praising them and rationalizing your praise.

And yes, actions speak much louder than words, especially lies.

Then why do you ignore the Dems' actions that prove that their words are lies???

 

[Minor Axis]

So you prefer to vote for the liar whose lies you agree with, even though you know them to be lies, because you would rather your vote go for someone who is likely to win rather than vote for the person you'd rather see in office?

I got it, you live in a black and white world where I see things as relative. Before I reach a point where I'm going to get involved in the armed overthrow of the government I'm going to vote for the best, most realistic choice. If there is none, I might not vote. Using that yardstick I'd vote for a slightly corrupt politician who would allow me to keep my job, than a completely corrupt one who would steal it. Apparently this thinking is over your head.

you contradict yourself. If someone "better" comes along, you won't/haven't voted for him/her because they have to be both "palatable and has more than a snowballs chance in hell of being elected." That takes out anybody not blessed by the party you call inept-but.

You assumption is WRONG.

If everyone would vote for the person they feel is best available for the job, rather than the lesser of two evils, then maybe we would get the best person available for the job, rather than evil.

The chance of winning must be factored into the vote, unless all choices are equally bad. That is unless the government has instituted "instant runoff" voting, which will never happen on the national level. When I voted for Jessie Ventura for Governor of Minnesota, the political field of competitors was sad. This was the most exciting guy in the race who sounded like he had good ideas. His ideas were good, but it turned out he was not attuned to the political environment. At that point I did not care if my vote was wasted or not. It can happen and it turns out he won.

No, it's not. It is used to negate the previous statement before rationalizing a negative action or emotion. "I know she's married, BUT we're in love." "I know it's illegal, BUT I need the money." "I think they're inept, BUT one of the other guys is worse."
So you see, all of these time you claim to criticize the Dems, you were actually praising them and rationalizing your praise.

Apparently your filters make you see it that way, but the use of "but" is a qualifier that can be used not as an excuse or for rationalization, but to clarify why a choice is made the way it is. If you don't believe me, that is your problem. And regarding the bolded quote above, if I have to vote, I'm going to pick the inept party over the ones that want to knife me. It's the best choice (under the circumstances) short of starting a revolution.

Then why do you ignore the Dems' actions that prove that their words are lies???

Why is all your focus on Democrats? Why not include GOPpers in this statement too? And for when you don't get my point, your critiques are mostly pointed at Dems as usual. I believe both parties lie on a regular basis, but I also believe that if primarily Dems and GOPs are the ones who are going to get voted into office, I'll choose Dems based on their history. Actually you can't flat out paint every individual in a party as a liar, but I can paint all of the current GOP leadership as evil. Yes, I can. If someone else comes along who seems like a better choice I'm happy to consider them, especially if I think they will help bring the country back to being a great place to live. There are some things about Libertarians I like, but I don't like their everyone for them selves positions on many issues. I see a role for the Federal Government I don't think it's is best to leave every decision up to each State. You think it is better (for the latter) so I'll leave it up to you to vote for whom you want.

 

[Accountable]

I got it, you live in a black and white world where I see things as relative. Before I reach a point where I'm going to get involved in the armed overthrow of the government I'm going to vote for the best, most realistic choice.

Armed overthrow?!? No wonder we can't communicate, with you making up shit out of whole cloth. But no, you're not going to vote for the best choice. You said so yourself. "Most realistic"?? You thought Obama was realistic.

If there is none, I might not vote. Using that yardstick I'd vote for a slightly corrupt politician who would allow me to keep my job, than a completely corrupt one who would steal it. Apparently this thinking is over your head.

That's your one criterion? Someone that would "allow" you to keep your job? You sound like a slave. You certainly have that mentality. Liberty is over your head. It scares the shit out of you because you instinctively sense that with liberty comes self-responsibility. Go, vote for someone who will "allow" you to keep your job.

The difference between you & I isn't black & white vs relative, it's that I'm optimistic and empowered and you're pessimistic and powerless. I see liberty as a right I wield; you see it as a privilege bestowed upon you by the government.

You assumption is WRONG.

No assumption at all. It's what you said:

Yes they have, but political forces are relative and I have to choose someone who I find palatable and has more than a snowballs chance in hell of being elected.

You vote party first and only. If the party wonk is too undeniably unacceptable (a pretty low bar, from your previous posts) then you don't vote.
No assumptions. They are your words.

The chance of winning must be factored into the vote, unless all choices are equally bad. That is unless the government has instituted "instant runoff" voting, which will never happen on the national level. When I voted for Jessie Ventura for Governor of Minnesota, the political field of competitors was sad. This was the most exciting guy in the race who sounded like he had good ideas. His ideas were good, but it turned out he was not attuned to the political environment. At that point I did not care if my vote was wasted or not. It can happen and it turns out he won.

You should vote that way every time, and try to convince everyone you know to do the same.

Apparently your filters make you see it that way, but the use of "but" is a qualifier that can be used not as an excuse or for rationalization, but to clarify why a choice is made the way it is. If you don't believe me, that is your problem.

It's not a matter of opinion, but of definition.

And regarding the bolded quote above, if I have to vote, I'm going to pick the inept party over the ones that want to knife me. It's the best choice (under the circumstances) short of starting a revolution.

I hope someday you'll be able to see through the rhetoric to the behavior. BOTH of them are knifing us.

 

[Minor Axis]

:horse

Accountable, get back to me when you can figure out how to stop making outlandish assumptions.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Don't ya'll ever get tired of discussing this same old shit with the same old people?

 

[Accountable]

Accountable, get back to me when you can figure out how to stop making outlandish assumptions.

What assumptions do you claim to be outlandish? I'll be happy to be wrong, but when I quote your own words, you can hardly call them assumptions.

 

[Minor Axis]

Don't ya'll ever get tired of discussing this same old shit with the same old people?

That's why we need more participation in the OTZ forums.