The second amendment is a good example. It was written with the idea that an armed citizenry would act to prevent a tyrannical government. Unfortunately modern technology has basically this original concept invalid, and instead the 2nd amendment as used today is to justify individuals owning a gun. One of the key points was supposed to be an armed and organized militia, which in the 1800s could have beat the federal army.
ROFL.It also doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to declare a law unconstitutional.
What part of all cases do you not understand?The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
...
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
I interpreted his posts to say "the concept of welfare didn't even exist, therefore this must be unconstitutional" and I am pointing out the flaw I see in that logic.
Did the fact that I used the word feel bother you? I could just have easily used the word with "think." The essence of what I said is exactly the same.
I'd also urge you to think about the larger picture of what you are saying, because there are a great deal of things in the Constitution that have been changed "as we know it today." The second amendment is a good example. It was written with the idea that an armed citizenry would act to prevent a tyrannical government. Unfortunately modern technology has basically this original concept invalid, and instead the 2nd amendment as used today is to justify individuals owning a gun. One of the key points was supposed to be an armed and organized militia, which in the 1800s could have beat the federal army.
There is also nothing in the Constitution that would grant anyone in our government the power to indefinitely lock up terrorists or to refuse to charge them and give them trials. The Constitution specifically says "persons" in the 5th amendment for this very reason, but many ignore it.
It says nothing about having a standing army or navy in times of peace, makes no mention of the Air Force whatsoever, and is pretty much completely opposed to the idea of fighting a war without having Congress declare it.
It also doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to declare a law unconstitutional.
ROFL.What part of all cases do you not understand?
So since you want to pull twisted examples out - are you suggesting you support the idea of an Originalist(read correct) reading of the Constitution? Strictly put - much of what our Federal gov't has done and continues to do is outside the scope of it's charge. Some of us are trying to prevent it from going further while some of you are cheering it on.
I was referring to the Declaration of Independence.Serious question...I'm not trying to sound like a dick or anything, but can you point me to where it says man or men in the consitution? I browsed and did not come across it, I could have easily overlooked though.
To leftists, "feel" and "think" are quite similar as their "thinking" has an emotional base instead of logical.
I was referring to the Declaration of Independence.
ROFL.What part of all cases do you not understand?
LOL... I thought the current discussion at hand was about definitions of words at the time. Sorry if I'm mistaken.Oh.
This thread was about the Constitution.
LOL... I thought the current discussion at hand was about definitions of words at the time. Sorry if I'm mistaken.
LOL... okSorry you are incorrect. But feel free to discuss any other words/meanings that you feel may differ now than what they meant in the Constitution. This thread was about the Constitution. Not the Declaration of Independance, not the Gettysburg Address, not the Articles of Confederation, not the Bible, nor the Koran, nor the Northern Star newspaper of the time.
Remember, we are talking about the Constitution. Sorry for your confusion.
No, it always was there by virtue of the fact that it wasn't anywhere else. (i.e. If no body is established with the power to review constitutionality, then the constitution has no effective power over Congress.) Judicial review is simply a fancy word for making facial rulings. The style is a little different, but in effect it is the same thing. If a law can not be construed in any way to be constitutional, then the body which has the power to hear cases under the superior body of law implicitly has the power to declare a law unconstitutional. If SCOTUS did not have this one power, then all of its judicial power would be void.The power of judicial review is not in the Constitution, and did not exist until the Supreme Court gave itself that power in Marbury vs. Madison. I am saying that a plain text reading of the Constitution does not explicitly give that power the to judicial branch.
No, it always was there by virtue of the fact that it wasn't anywhere else...
/snip
I inserted a more detailed explanation with an edit. I don't know if you read my post before it got in or not.And thus the slippery slope began.
And thus the slippery slope began. I'm not saying judicial review is wrong, but I'm trying to draw a line between the two concepts for you. How do you justify one and not the other?
Consider a Constitution which is identical to the existing one but has an explicit clause added that no court may declare a law unconstitutional. If that is the case, then what would happen if Congress passed a law saying that "Excessive bail shall be required, and excessive fines imposed, and cruel and unusual punishments inflicted...."
Would such a court have the power to make a facial ruling against this law? If so then you have created a power of judicial review. If not, then does the Constitution have any power over Congress at all?
That is the exact same leap of faith made in giving it any other judicial power. The judiciary is the one body which is unaccountable - and must be for it to function in the tradition of independence. Whether a society needs an independent judiciary is a separate question, but I haven't seen a compelling alternative.I understand the problem with a lack of judicial review, which is why I believe it should exist. The question I'm trying to ask is that, no matter what logic you use, on some level you are taking the leap of faith that the Supreme Court (part of the federal government) will not abuse this power.
That is why I despise the statist powers entrenched on both sides of the aisle.The irony of this entire thread is that guys like Cad are trying so hard to pain a picture of "us vs. them, left vs. right" that they ignore the fact that the extreme left and right agree on this issue. The far left believes the individual mandate is unconstitutional because it violates individual choice, the same reason they support abortion. Each side agrees on the outcome, just not the way they justify it.
That's quite an idealistic take on things, given the pragmatic reality of SCOTUS cases. It's not about truth or values; all you need is five votes.For what it's worth, I believe it's probably unconstitutional.
The constitution stands as a living document, it's suppose to be a guideline. Progress is a bitch ain't it?
If the constitutional was intended to be a "living" document, why did the framers include a process to amend it?
I think you might want to reframe this question, because it sort of answers itself. A process was created to amend it so that future generations could change it if they wanted to. The amendment process itself doesn't necessarily lead to good policy, the ban on prohibition should show that.
That's why it's hard to Amend, so it doesn't just flow with the political wind. It is a CAGE, not a living document. You must live within it's framework or amend it - it's just that simple yet it seems the left just doesn't want to accept it.