The Red and Black

Originally posted by

Winslo

"...and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the DUTIES incumbent upon me...'.

Following the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, the supreme court was granted the "duty" to interpret the law and its subsequent constitutionality through judicial review.

So, yes, there is "something in there" about the supreme court justices defending the constitution. Sorry.

Originally posted by

UGAChemDawg

Because the left believes the Constitution is a "living document" whose meaning is determined soley by whatever the Supreme Court at the time "interprets" (read: makes stuff up) it to mean, I have absolutely no interest in a liberal polititian's proclamations of reverence for the document.

It is impossible for a liberal to defend the Constitution because, according to their own judicial philosophy, there is nothing there to defend in the first place. They simply do whatever they please and then have activist judges supply an ad hoc justification for their actions under the guise of "reinterpreting the Constitution in light of contemporary understandings of justice" or some other such woo.

WELL SAID !


"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

George Washington

Originally posted by

BusteD

What are you two upset about?

Is it the fact that this document grants rights to everyone, and not just white Christian males?

Please enlighten me, because I fail to see your point.

I don't see them complaining that the Constitution was abused by corporate lawyers to use the amendment that freed slaves to get corporate personhood.

Originally posted by

BusteD

What are you two upset about?

Is it the fact that this document grants rights to everyone, and not just white Christian males?

Please enlighten me, because I fail to see your point.

How about the perversion of the interstate commerce clause? The federal government regulates parts of society and our lives they have derive from no where in the Constitution, so liberal judges throughout time have simply expanded the interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. It has been liberals who have shifted powers once given to states to a large bureaucratic federal government. It was the age of liberalism from the 30s-60s that ended the Lochner Era and brought about an age of unprecedented and unfounded federal expansion.

I would vote for the person who will restore the constitutional balance of power between the states and federal govts.

Originally posted by

BusteD

What are you two upset about?

Is it the fact that this document grants rights to everyone, and not just white Christian males?

Please enlighten me, because I fail to see your point.

Andy:

First, there are a lot of sweeping generalizations made in your post, and you fail to substantiate any of them. Second, by ending the Lochner era, what specifically are you upset about? Do you not agree with minimum wage, and employers providing adequate working conditions?!

Had greedy capitalists acted responsibly, this may have never happened. As such, I can blame the entire scenario on Conservatives, who were the leading culprits of such crimes.

Granted there are a lot of random laws in the books, and many are tied loosely to minor clauses in the constitution, but ultimately our people prospered because of them.

Also, interestingly enough, from the Department of Statistics that May or May Not Mean Anything ...

Since 1929, Republicans and Democrats have each controlled the presidency for nearly 40 years. ... As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only ... Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years.

So who is to blame for your economic woes? Whose legislation seems to be more prosperous?

Originally posted by

BusteD

What are you two upset about?

Is it the fact that this document grants rights to everyone, and not just white Christian males?

Please enlighten me, because I fail to see your point.

Yes, I did fail to substantiate them because one, I am a busy man and don't have time to write a long post. Also, I thought you could infer my points through my general statements. My mention of the Lochner era was to bring up the age of the federal government holding the hand of its citizens- a nanny state, if you will. To bring up the actual Lochner case, employees, and not the government, have the right to renegotiate their employment contracts. The contract between the employer and employee is between the two parties, and it is not for the government to interfere. Are there occasional injustices? Yes. But do those injustices outweigh the encroachment of the freedom to negotiate your own contracts? Certainly not.

If you want to set up minimal standards, which of course most of us will find reasonable, it should come from state legislatures. Example- Georgia can have its own minimum wage law if its voters decide. Why do we need a federal minimum wage? Where does the federal government derive the power to enforce such a wage?

This is my general point. I am not talking about Democrat vs. Republican. I am talking about conservative/libertarian vs. big government/Great Society/liberalism.

Like I said, I am a busy man. I could make point after point on the oversteps of the federal government over the last 80 years, but alas, my other duties call.

Originally posted by

BusteD

Judges play no role in creating AMENDMENTS.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

So when an issue not represented in the constitution comes up, they have to interpret the fine print of the constitution to decree whether certain rights are bestowed upon the American people. They take into account modern science, contemporary thought, previous precedents etc., but ultimately have to come up with a answer.

I'm sorry you do not agree with the ruling of Roe v. Wade. You are right, abortion should ultimately have an amendment representing it in the constitution. However, it is up to the house to make that decision, and with our entire country disagreeing on the issue, sacrifices have to be made. The amendment can not, and will not, outlaw abortion. There simply is not a majority on either side of the issue to allow one to win.

Pro-Lifers are gonna have to find a middle ground they can stand on. Otherwise, they'll have to leave; slave drivers did the same when the country put its foot down. Good luck in the following election, because you'll need it.

Try not to equate abortion and slavery. Slavery had to do with the devaluing of human life while abortion deals with the value of life.

As far as the issue goes, see my above post. Abortion is a state issue, which is best decided by the governments closer to us. California can have abortion on demand while Georgia can limit abortion in certain ways. This is the most democratic and, to be on topic, constitutional.

Originally posted by

BusteD

Judges play no role in creating AMENDMENTS.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

So when an issue not represented in the constitution comes up, they have to interpret the fine print of the constitution to decree whether certain rights are bestowed upon the American people. They take into account modern science, contemporary thought, previous precedents etc., but ultimately have to come up with a answer.

I'm sorry you do not agree with the ruling of Roe v. Wade. You are right, abortion should ultimately have an amendment representing it in the constitution. However, it is up to the house to make that decision, and with our entire country disagreeing on the issue, sacrifices have to be made. The amendment can not, and will not, outlaw abortion. There simply is not a majority on either side of the issue to allow one to win.

Pro-Lifers are gonna have to find a middle ground they can stand on. Otherwise, they'll have to leave; slave drivers did the same when the country put its foot down. Good luck in the following election, because you'll need it.

Despite you believing the most fair and Democratic way to handle abortion is to leave it up to the states, it simply wouldn't work.

People would travel between states to receive abortion operations. When problems arise, the Feds would step in on the premise of protecting interstate commerce. What happens then?

You're back to where you started. This has to be resolved on a national level, and I guarantee prohibiting abortion will not be the outcome.

Originally posted by

Winslo

I go back to the original quote from Washington:

If you cheapen, prostitute and ursurp (even for something good) the Constitution by "making" it say things that are not in it, you set this Republic up for eventual failure .........

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

George Washington

I REST MY CASE YOUR HONOR ............

So George Washington is relevant HOW? The man was known as "Town Destroyer" by the native populations he wiped out of existence -- should we also learn from that?

I'm not trying to demonize him, but I think it's bad to just do whatever the founding fathers said. That's a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority, and a very illegitimate one.

Originally posted by

Class of '98

Biden also recently said that Article One of the Constitution defines the responsibilities of the Vice President. Wrong, it's Article Two.

My mom can say the words "Cover-2 nickel defense" 10 times in a sentence, it doesn't mean she understands it.

On a side note, Biden also said that president FDR went on TV after the stock market crash of 1929. If anyone reading this sentence doesn't immediately see two glaring mistakes in that, you need to go back to middle school.

Can you imagine if Sarah Palin said that? Good grief, the New York Times would have had it on their front page for 2 straight months, and Leno and Letterman would still be making jokes about 15 years later.

Think for yourselves people. Vote McCain.

Yes, I will think for myself by doing exactly what you tell me too. Genius.

Originally posted by

Winslo

To BusteD:

Well, since you ask on a personal note I believe abortion is America's holocaust (especially late term and born alive and left to die). Just last week I saw my four month old granddaughter for the first time (in the womb) via a sonogram. I watched her heart beat and the technician said she was probably sucking her thumb. It was amazing.

1) That said, the best I believe I can hope for is a ruling that will let each state decide. Even many liberal lawyers who support abortion believe Roe v. Wade was "bad law".

2) Yes, there would be problems but for me there is no excuse for the taking of innocent human life.

You're a grandfather and you're posting on a college newspaper website? You and CoastalDawg need to start fucking.