Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 16 at 11:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

I'm Thrilled

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: I'm Thrilled

Post by Bryce » Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:55 pm

Hardly Craig. The amendment process is arduous and time consuming. Two thirds of the states must sign on. Someone in a black robe should not be able to amend with the stroke of a pen.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
craig11152
Posts: 2034
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:15 am
Location: Ann Arbor

Re: I'm Thrilled

Post by craig11152 » Wed Feb 01, 2017 4:16 pm

Bryce wrote:Hardly Craig. The amendment process is arduous and time consuming. Two thirds of the states must sign on. Someone in a black robe should not be able to amend with the stroke of a pen.
I don't disagree. Give me an example of 5 black robes (not one as you stated) that you feel "amended" the constitution with a ruling.


I no longer directly engage trolls

Y M Ionhere
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:31 pm
Location: Where the sun no longer shines

Re: I'm Thrilled

Post by Y M Ionhere » Wed Feb 01, 2017 5:51 pm

NS8401 wrote:
Y M Ionhere wrote:Sorry, but I cannot comprehend how anyone can seriously, honestly believe that the Constitution can be interpreted in any way other than a very literal meaning.i firmly do not believe the founders intended it to be vague or flexible. No point in writing it if it was supposed to change. I do not believe theres any indication that it was intended to be a living, breathing document and as such, cannot be treated as such.its not a blank canvas. I have a hard time believing that most people could think otherwise. They just wont say it.
Guns = use for a militia or hunting or maybe a rousing dual...
Transportation matters? Think horses.
It's living in the sense that it isn't fixed... it's been changed 26 times... that's what people mean. You also have to interpret it based on the world we live in and the concepts we have today. Applying 1787 thinking to 2017 is like trying to power a Ferrari with a mule...

Oh and if you want to be literal then no more Supreme Court settling constitutional questions. That's not in there. That's the ultimate judicial activism.
I believe the amendments are perfectly fine for the purpose of modernizing the Constitution based on whats already in it.
Gun advocates will say that the military rented guns from private citizens to use during battle, and therefore the blackpowder rifles and pistols that were rented from private citizens WERE warfare-grade weapons. As a result, they will liken AR-15s to the warfare-grade weapons at the time.So, since the military used privately-owned weapons, current "military" weapons are the modern equivalent and should be covered. Gun control activists will say that nobody could have predicted that gun technology would advance as much as it has and therefore, we cannot include AR15s in the 2nd amedment. Both are compelling.And thats why I believe very strict interpretation based on what IS written and circumstances surrounding it is vital. Therefore, gun bans and additional amedments must be approached with no political bias or activist ties to ensure a fair, rational agreement.
For transportation, cars may not have existed, but they are private property much like houses and ox carts. I don't see how cars differ much in terms of other kinds of private property law. But on those occasions when they do, a "living, breathing documents" will lead to abuse by activists. Case in point: states rights vs. property rights. A man could sue the state of California for requiring an emissions test that his car won't pass. Radical environmentalists will side with the state. Libertarian property rights zealots will side with the car owner. Its ripe for abuse. An additional amendment could be fine to update, or clarify, a law based on new technology, but first, extremely strict interpretations will need to be required in order to fairly implement it without bias and propaganda.



Y M Ionhere
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:31 pm
Location: Where the sun no longer shines

Re: I'm Thrilled

Post by Y M Ionhere » Wed Feb 01, 2017 6:04 pm

craig11152 wrote:
Y M Ionhere wrote:Sorry, but I cannot comprehend how anyone can seriously, honestly believe that the Constitution can be interpreted in any way other than a very literal meaning.i firmly do not believe the founders intended it to be vague or flexible. No point in writing it if it was supposed to change. I do not believe theres any indication that it was intended to be a living, breathing document and as such, cannot be treated as such.its not a blank canvas. I have a hard time believing that most people could think otherwise. They just wont say it.
Thomas Jefferson said the constitution should be rewritten every generation. Granted he wasn't there when it was written (was an ambassador in France I think) but he wrote the Declaration of Independence and he is on everybody's short list of "Founding Fathers". He is also on most short lists of greatest American "thinkers". His theory was that the nation belonged to the living not the dead. He felt once more than half the generation that wrote the last one was gone it was time to write a new one.


As to Supreme Court Justices I think/wish they should be elected by the people and/or have a set term. I'm OK if that term is 10-12 years but it should have an end.
I feel like Mr. Jefferson was mistaken. Using his logic, I guess an unsatisfied new generation could rip up his Declaration Of Independence and sign a new one under a rewritten Constitution. And why spend so much time writing it and including so many details if it wasnt intended to hold up for centuries?
Not arguing with you on the second point. Big decisions are being made by people who we didn't have any say in.We choose Senators and reps but not people with more, and farther-reaching, powers. Would that, though, be by popular vote or electoral college?



Deleted User 8570

Re: I'm Thrilled

Post by Deleted User 8570 » Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:15 pm

Y M Ionhere wrote:
craig11152 wrote:
Y M Ionhere wrote:Sorry, but I cannot comprehend how anyone can seriously, honestly believe that the Constitution can be interpreted in any way other than a very literal meaning.i firmly do not believe the founders intended it to be vague or flexible. No point in writing it if it was supposed to change. I do not believe theres any indication that it was intended to be a living, breathing document and as such, cannot be treated as such.its not a blank canvas. I have a hard time believing that most people could think otherwise. They just wont say it.
Thomas Jefferson said the constitution should be rewritten every generation. Granted he wasn't there when it was written (was an ambassador in France I think) but he wrote the Declaration of Independence and he is on everybody's short list of "Founding Fathers". He is also on most short lists of greatest American "thinkers". His theory was that the nation belonged to the living not the dead. He felt once more than half the generation that wrote the last one was gone it was time to write a new one.


As to Supreme Court Justices I think/wish they should be elected by the people and/or have a set term. I'm OK if that term is 10-12 years but it should have an end.
I feel like Mr. Jefferson was mistaken. Using his logic, I guess an unsatisfied new generation could rip up his Declaration Of Independence and sign a new one under a rewritten Constitution. And why spend so much time writing it and including so many details if it wasnt intended to hold up for centuries?
Not arguing with you on the second point. Big decisions are being made by people who we didn't have any say in.We choose Senators and reps but not people with more, and farther-reaching, powers. Would that, though, be by popular vote or electoral college?
We are perhaps the only country (states like Michigan have gone through several constitutions of their own) that hasn't had its national constitution replaced... as we can see it's debatable how good or bad this is...



tapeisrolling
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:07 pm
Location: go ahead, I'm listening

Re: I'm Thrilled

Post by tapeisrolling » Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:34 pm

I listened to a Law Professor mention one time the an idea floated once was 18 year terms for judges. These would be spread out so every term of a President two Judges could be named OR re-uped for another term. This way if change could be made is a fluid fashion rather then starts and stops. This would take an Amendment and that probably will never happen.

In true fashion the Supreme Court is all Eastern bred lawyers, Harvard, Yale and Columbia. Wouldn't it be nice to get a judge who got trained west of New York? It's a whole different world out there.

Hopefully this new Judge knows something of modern tech so he won't sound like Scalia asking in oral hearing how texting on a cell phone works and can I get a call while I'm texting? Just think about these folks interpeting the law that we will have to live by.



User avatar
Calvert DeForest
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:14 pm
Location: The corner of US-16 and M-78

Re: I'm Thrilled

Post by Calvert DeForest » Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:37 am

The Second Amendment was enacted to provide citizens a means to defend themselves against a tyrannical regime. Since the most powerful firearm of the time was a single-load musket, it would make sense for citizens to possess such in defense of potential government tyranny. Given that firearm technology has obviously advanced over the past 230 years since its writing, the idea that a musket could adequately defend a citizen in this day and age is not valid. The term "well-trained militia" could be reasonably defined as law-abiding citizens who have completed firearms certification courses and hold the necessary legal permits. This may be one area where many Constitutional literalists would agree that the Constitution is indeed a living, breathing document, and I would tend to agree with that assessment.

That being said, the Founding Fathers could not have possibly envisioned a world where their fledgling republic would be a world superpower. Nor could they envision a world in which modern weapons of warfare (i.e. nuclear bombs) had the potential to end all life on Earth as we know it. This is just one area in which the Constitution as it was drafted in 1787 had no advantage of foresight....no crystal ball into subsequent centuries.

A prime example of this would be the War Powers Act. A literalist must maintain that it was the explicit intent of the Founding Fathers to limit the ability of the Chief Executive to wage war on any foreign nation without a formal Declaration of War from the Congress (they took the idea of war very seriously, and regarded it only as a last resort for national defense). The last time we had one of those was when Franklin Roosevelt asked for it on December 8th, 1941. Since World War II, the United States has been involved in (at least according to my count) five undeclared foreign wars. Although nobody will argue that the war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was justified, the relatively new concept that war can be declared against "ideas" instead of nations, coupled with the equally new concept that Congress can grant the president blanket authority to initiate foreign military interventions without a formal Declaration of War on their part is a Constitutional interpretation the founders likely could not have foreseen when drafting the historical blueprint for their young republic.

My point (and surprisingly, I do have one) is that the debate over whether the Constitution is a literal or living document depends not only on one's political-ideological viewpoint of the document itself, but also the issue at hand. This is where, it seems, we tend to get into six of one and a half-dozen of the other.

End of ramble....my coffee's getting cold. :razz


Shortwave is the ORIGINAL satellite radio.

User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: I'm Thrilled

Post by audiophile » Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:48 am

Even if you like or dislike GWB, he did get permission for Afghanistan and Iraq.

If was not labelled a declaration if war, but it was authorized nevertheless.

Obama went into Libya and had no such authorization.
Last edited by audiophile on Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:59 am, edited 1 time in total.


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

User avatar
Calvert DeForest
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:14 pm
Location: The corner of US-16 and M-78

Re: I'm Thrilled

Post by Calvert DeForest » Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:53 am

audiophile wrote:Obama went into Libya and had no such authorization.
I stand corrected....six undeclared wars.

As for Afghanistan and Iraq, there is a difference between authorization to use military force and a formal Congressional Declaration of War. We have relied on the former since Korea (termed a "police action", although we didn't send any cops).

I'll admit times have changed, but on some things I tend to be old-school.


Shortwave is the ORIGINAL satellite radio.

User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: I'm Thrilled

Post by Bryce » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:43 pm

craig11152 wrote:
I don't disagree. Give me an example of 5 black robes (not one as you stated) that you feel "amended" the constitution with a ruling.
First two that pop into my head is the Dred Scott decision and the ACA ruling.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: I'm Thrilled

Post by audiophile » Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:59 am

Does anyone like the Dred Scott decision here?

ACA was actually Roberts showing a lot of restraint. Everyone knew it was a tax increase disguised as penalty. It was laughable that Obama admin kept saying it wasn't a tax increase...


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

Deleted User 8570

Re: I'm Thrilled

Post by Deleted User 8570 » Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:03 am

audiophile wrote:Does anyone like the Dred Scott decision here?

ACA was actually Roberts showing a lot of restraint. Everyone knew it was a tax increase disguised as penalty. It was laughable that Obama admin kept saying it wasn't a tax increase...
How can it be a tax increase if it only hits those who don't have insurance... that doesn't make sense...



User avatar
Calvert DeForest
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:14 pm
Location: The corner of US-16 and M-78

Re: I'm Thrilled

Post by Calvert DeForest » Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:20 am

NS8401 wrote:How can it be a tax increase if it only hits those who don't have insurance... that doesn't make sense...
Because it's tied to a mandate that it is assumed many people won't follow, either because they choose not to or they simply can't afford to. The penalty is cheaper than the cost of insurance for a reason. Makes the penalty more affordable, guaranteeing that many will just go ahead and pay it.

Plus, the penalty is assessed on one's federal tax return, and where does that money go?


Shortwave is the ORIGINAL satellite radio.

A1B1C1D1
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 7:21 pm

Re: I'm Thrilled

Post by A1B1C1D1 » Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:59 am

craig11152 wrote: As to Supreme Court Justices I think/wish they should be elected by the people and/or have a set term. I'm OK if that term is 10-12 years but it should have an end.
I agree on term limits for federal judges. I would add Congress, 10 years rep, 12 years senate. Judges getting 12 years terms is fair, of course they retire when they serve a favorable President.

FDR did try to impose term limits on the SC after they repealed some of his new deal programs and it ended badly for him... though not badly enough to get elected twice more.



User avatar
Calvert DeForest
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:14 pm
Location: The corner of US-16 and M-78

Re: I'm Thrilled

Post by Calvert DeForest » Fri Feb 03, 2017 12:52 pm

craig11152 wrote: As to Supreme Court Justices I think/wish they should be elected by the people and/or have a set term. I'm OK if that term is 10-12 years but it should have an end.
The idea was that the appointment of Supreme Court justices for life would remove any possibility of political influence that could affect their rulings. Works like a charm once they're on the bench.

Then again, the appointment and confirmation process was never meant to be the politically-charged shit storm it has evolved into. Used to be the litmus test for a justice was "are you capable of interpreting the Constitution?". Nowadays it's "are you capable of interpreting the Constitution the way I do?".

Still, life terms do occasionally contain the element of surprise. There have been many cases in which a justice or two didn't vote the way they were "expected" to.


Shortwave is the ORIGINAL satellite radio.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic