True or false

[SmarterthanYou]

I must take exception to this statement. There are many ways they could have formed a federal government. While it was their intent to form a federal government, they used the means of a Constitution to define and limit the government they were creating. They could have used an open charter. They chose not to.

Thus the "first and foremost" intent of the Constitution was to provide the defined limits of their new government, not to create it.

in order to limit and define something, it has to be created first. This is why separate articles of the constitution create the equal branches and assigns them their specific powers. The BoR then goes on to further limit the newly created government cannot even touch, like the right to bear arms.

 

[RubberMallet]

I vote straw man.

A better question would be:

Is the original intent of the founding fathers a worthy goal for this nation, did these flawed human beings together make something that is worth fighting for?

actually the question is how did we go from MEN like that to congressmen worrying about whether wild stallions act like, well, wild stallions?

 

[flaja]

How can a government be bound by a document when they are free to interpret the document in any way they desire?

When have I said the federal government is not bound by the Constitution? All I have I said is the binding is not exact. The extent to which the government is bound by the Constitution depends on how you interpret the Constitution and whether or not the political and judicial processes determines if something the government does is or is not necessary and proper.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

When have I said the federal government is not bound by the Constitution? All I have I said is the binding is not exact. The extent to which the government is bound by the Constitution depends on how you interpret the Constitution and whether or not the political and judicial processes determines if something the government does is or is not necessary and proper.

you're asking a branch of government, that's created by the constitution, to interpret and define what they and the other branches can and cannot do. do you not see the absurdity in that?

 

[Good Luck]

It's simple: allowing government to interpret their own limitations is asking the fox to guard the hen house.

When we allow government to interpret their limitations, that is when we end up with administrations like FDR and GW Bush, who interpreted things for their own advancement in authority under the claim of being good for the "general welfare" of the people.

 

[flaja]

It's simple: allowing government to interpret their own limitations is asking the fox to guard the hen house.

You are being disingenuous here. Due to our system of checks and balances and separation of powers you know very well (unless you are the stupidest person on this board) that the entire government is not responsible for interpreting how the Constitution limits the government. Interpretation comes from a judiciary that is independent of the other branches of government in its operation. For all practical purpose the Courts have no vested interest in how much power the president and Congress have. Judges gain nothing by interpreting the Constitution one way or another.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You are being disingenuous here. Due to our system of checks and balances and separation of powers you know very well (unless you are the stupidest person on this board) that the entire government is not responsible for interpreting how the Constitution limits the government. Interpretation comes from a judiciary that is independent of the other branches of government in its operation. For all practical purpose the Courts have no vested interest in how much power the president and Congress have. Judges gain nothing by interpreting the Constitution one way or another.

perhaps you could explain the 'switch in time that saved nine' then?

 

[Good Luck]

You are being disingenuous here. Due to our system of checks and balances and separation of powers you know very well (unless you are the stupidest person on this board) that the entire government is not responsible for interpreting how the Constitution limits the government. Interpretation comes from a judiciary that is independent of the other branches of government in its operation. For all practical purpose the Courts have no vested interest in how much power the president and Congress have. Judges gain nothing by interpreting the Constitution one way or another.

And you are being outright stupid.

The President selects the justices, and the Senate confirms them. Checks and balances become distorted when the selection of justices is colored by the possibility of gaining power through the Supreme Court. If the court is limited, as it is supposed to be, to simply comparing the effects of a piece of legislation to the limitations of the Constitution as written, then there is no motivation to stack the court with justices of any particular political philosophy. It is because we are allowing the Court to interpret the Constitution, rather than do the job the Constitution designed for them of protecting the people by applying the Constitution to legislated laws, that justice appointments are now as strongly political as any presidential election. The "interpretation" model of the Constitution is not only allowing federal powers far outside the design, but also has created a significant imbalance in the design of checks and balances.

In short, you are once again dead wrong.