What are your core political beliefs?

[Cancel 2018. 3]

-- the living constitution debate is one that probably cannot be broken down in a simple post, nonetheless, it can be discussed. i don't believe in all the ideas of a living constitution (various theories), however, i believe our judicial system is set up to interpret the constitution. the manner of interpretation should always start with the founders intent, so long as it can be established. this of course is rather difficult, as can be seen with second amendment arguments and grammar - comma vs. semi-colon etc.... if our courts cannot determine the intent from the founders, then we enter a grey area, despite the fact that scotus has given itself plenary power to review and make determinations regarding the constitution, which i will note, the legislature has not overturned. in essence, i believe the constitution is not set in stone, the courts are empowered to interpret it, however, if a fundamental change occurs, it should be by the legislative branch and not the courts. question then becomes, what if the issue is abortion? and on and on.

-- marriage is a fundamental right. marriage, as it stands now, is a contract under STATE law. of course, then the issue becomes the full faith and credit clause. under current laws, no relationship that is legal should be denied marriage. thus, under current laws, gay marriage should absolutely be legal. that said, the government should get out of marriage, call any contract with the state a 'civil union', because in reality, that is all it really is, a civil contract between two people and the state. let marriage stay with the people and not the government.

-- drugs. it boggles my mind how marijuana is a class 1 drug, given, the numerous scientific studies that show it does in fact have medical value. alcohol prohibition failed, again FAILED and we had to make an amendment to change it back to legal status. it is important to note that it took a constitution amendment to make alcohol prohibited, YET, no such amendment ever existed for marijuana, or any other drug for that matter. that, alone, should make federal drug unconstitutional and as such, should fall to the states under the 10th.

with that in mind, i do not support legalization of any other schedule 1 drug, other than marijuana. their addictive propensities far outweigh any federal intrusion with drugs. but when it comes down to it, again, this should be left to the states. using the commerce clause to enforce federal drug laws is a fracking sham.

-- military spending needs to be CUT. i'm not sure we need to close a lot of bases, rather, the spending on highfalutin military projects that go no where, spending ridiculous amounts of money for something, that with a little oversight, we could spend less on. we spend more on our military than several major powers combined, not necessary at this point in time.

-- healthcare. expand medicaid to include all ages, cut waste and get rid of obamacare. our poor should not be denied medical coverage as it only harms the country vs. helps it. i don't think there is a constitutional way to control medical costs, but something along those lines should be considered. they are exorbitant and no other industrial nation has the sky high costs we do. now, i know that we enjoy some of the best medical care in the country, but, only for the rich. there is no way that it should be this way.

i could go on...but that is all for now

 

[Robo]

-- the living constitution debate is one that probably cannot be broken down in a simple post, nonetheless, it can be discussed. i don't believe in all the ideas of a living constitution (various theories), however, i believe our judicial system is set up to interpret the constitution.

I argue that the Constitution is only “living” in the sense that it has an “amendment clause.”

I argue that the idea that the Supreme Court is established to interpret the Constitution is laughable at best and evil at its worse. Actually the vast majority of the Constitution can be easily interpreted by anyone with average intelligence. Thus, the idea that the Supreme Court is the only body capable of credible constitutional interpretation is absurd. Actually, the Supreme Court is established to interpret the written law and thereby the linguistic gymnastics of politicians hell bent on skirting and or violating the Constitution and to determine if States, corporations or people have violated the constitutional rights of a person or persons. The Duty of the Court is to interpret the law as written and determine its validity within the confines of the Constitution.

The major flaw in the constitutional system is of course it fails to take into account that Judges like so many politicians are political ideologues who have no loyalty or respect to their oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” Rather their loyalties to their political ideology and thereby their prejudices take priority over and above the Constitution. That’s the people’s fault because it’s the people who elect and reelect the politicians that appoint and confirm the political ideologues to the courts.

“Mankind has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that he cannot govern himself successfully for any extended period of time, he always fails and always will.”

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I argue that the Constitution is only “living” in the sense that it has an “amendment clause.”

I argue that the idea that the Supreme Court is established to interpret the Constitution is laughable at best and evil at its worse. Actually the vast majority of the Constitution can be easily interpreted by anyone with average intelligence. Thus, the idea that the Supreme Court is the only body capable of credible constitutional interpretation is absurd. Actually, the Supreme Court is established to interpret the written law and thereby the linguistic gymnastics of politicians hell bent on skirting and or violating the Constitution and to determine if States, corporations or people have violated the constitutional rights of a person or persons. The Duty of the Court is to interpret the law as written and determine its validity within the confines of the Constitution.

The major flaw in the constitutional system is of course it fails to take into account that Judges like so many politicians are political ideologues who have no loyalty or respect to their oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” Rather their loyalties to their political ideology and thereby their prejudices take priority over and above the Constitution. That’s the people’s fault because it’s the people who elect and reelect the politicians that appoint and confirm the political ideologues to the courts.

“Mankind has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that he cannot govern himself successfully for any extended period of time, he always fails and always will.”

in order to do that, they must have the power of interpretation. anyone can interpret the constitution, however, we must have one body that is the final arbiter or else we have a million different laws based on constitutional interpretation.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

in order to do that, they must have the power of interpretation. anyone can interpret the constitution, however, we must have one body that is the final arbiter or else we have a million different laws based on constitutional interpretation.

we do have one body that is the final arbiter. those that wrote it.....we the people.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

we do have one body that is the final arbiter. those that wrote it.....we the people.

is that you, me...who exactly? 150 million different opinions?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I argue that the Constitution is only “living” in the sense that it has an “amendment clause.”

I argue that the idea that the Supreme Court is established to interpret the Constitution is laughable at best and evil at its worse. Actually the vast majority of the Constitution can be easily interpreted by anyone with average intelligence. Thus, the idea that the Supreme Court is the only body capable of credible constitutional interpretation is absurd. Actually, the Supreme Court is established to interpret the written law and thereby the linguistic gymnastics of politicians hell bent on skirting and or violating the Constitution and to determine if States, corporations or people have violated the constitutional rights of a person or persons. The Duty of the Court is to interpret the law as written and determine its validity within the confines of the Constitution.

The major flaw in the constitutional system is of course it fails to take into account that Judges like so many politicians are political ideologues who have no loyalty or respect to their oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” Rather their loyalties to their political ideology and thereby their prejudices take priority over and above the Constitution. That’s the people’s fault because it’s the people who elect and reelect the politicians that appoint and confirm the political ideologues to the courts.

“Mankind has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that he cannot govern himself successfully for any extended period of time, he always fails and always will.”

I get the point you are making here, and I somewhat agree with the spirit of what you are saying, but I think you are making two critical mistakes, you are over-simplifying and being alarmist. First off, the Constitution is not easy to interpret, if it were, we wouldn't need a court to decide Constitutionality, and we wouldn't need Constitutional scholars who devote years and years of their lives studying the darn thing. As I said before, we'd all walk around with a copy in our pocket, and whenever some issue arose, we'd whip out our pocket constitution and show the other party the universally understood interpretation, to which they couldn't contest because they would have interpreted it the same way. This is idealistic, but it's not the world we live in.

"Promote the general welfare" can mean any number of things to any number of people, it's not exactly clear. We have to dig into the Federalist Papers to see what the Founding Fathers were talking about and how they intended this to be applied. That's where the Constitutional scholars and courts come in. More times than not, the SCOTUS is hearing a case where TWO Constitutional rights conflict with each other. Since the Constitution doesn't specify that any right is paramount over all others, we need some body to determine the disputes.

Secondly, you want to jump the tracks of sanity and become anarchic. The courts aren't deciding cases based on personal politics. Now, a judge might vote according to his/her personal politics, but every case I've ever read from the SCOTUS contains two opinions, the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion. Both opinions are written interpretations of the Constitution. I've never heard an opinion that was based on personal politics and nothing more. In every case, the opinions are made on sound basis and rooted in fundamental interpretations of the Constitution, not politics. It's just that different people see things differently, we don't all see things the same as you.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

is that you, me...who exactly? 150 million different opinions?

generally, or even more specifically, it's 12 people in a jury box.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I get the point you are making here, and I somewhat agree with the spirit of what you are saying, but I think you are making two critical mistakes, you are over-simplifying and being alarmist. First off, the Constitution is not easy to interpret, if it were, we wouldn't need a court to decide Constitutionality, and we wouldn't need Constitutional scholars who devote years and years of their lives studying the darn thing. As I said before, we'd all walk around with a copy in our pocket, and whenever some issue arose, we'd whip out our pocket constitution and show the other party the universally understood interpretation, to which they couldn't contest because they would have interpreted it the same way. This is idealistic, but it's not the world we live in.

I have to totally disagree here. the constitution is extremely easy to read and understand. It was read and explained via editorials, commentaries, and town hall meetings to all concerned before it was ratified. those people knew exactly what everything written down meant. It took years, judges, and hundreds of lawyers to screw it all up after that.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

generally, or even more specifically, it's 12 people in a jury box.

so each time a constitutional issue comes up, a jury of 12 gets to decide interpretation? can you imagine the chaos?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

generally, or even more specifically, it's 12 people in a jury box.

so each time a constitutional issue comes up, a jury of 12 gets to decide interpretation? can you imagine the chaos?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I have to totally disagree here. the constitution is extremely easy to read and understand. It was read and explained via editorials, commentaries, and town hall meetings to all concerned before it was ratified. those people knew exactly what everything written down meant. It took years, judges, and hundreds of lawyers to screw it all up after that.

Well, the document isn't written in Swahili, so yeah, it's easy to read and understand, but the intent and meaning of what you read is debatable. As I continue to point out, there is no "universal understanding" of the Constitution, if that were the case, we'd just need to keep a copy in our pocket, and whenever some issue arose, whip it out and show the other person what the Constitution says, and no problem! But we both know why this wouldn't work, because people can (and do) often interpret what they read differently.

Even in your own argument, you admit that this document was "explained via editorials, commentaries, and town hall meetings" ...well, if it's such an easy thing to understand, why did they go to such lengths to explain it? Couldn't the people simply read it and easily understand what it meant? The truth is, NO.. they couldn't! They needed the founding fathers to explain what they meant, and they did so in the Federalist Papers. Many people simply didn't understand the Constitution, and this is why it had to be explained. Likewise, many people of today, still don't understand the Constitution, even Supreme Court Justices!

To pretend we live in some fantasy world, where the Constitution simply means what you have determined it to mean, is almost comical, if it weren't so serious. You have your interpretation, and if you can support that with legitimate explanations from the Federalist Papers and the Founding Fathers, you may convince others your interpretation is correct. This is the reality we actually live in.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

so each time a constitutional issue comes up, a jury of 12 gets to decide interpretation? can you imagine the chaos?

you've never heard of jury nullification?

 

[Banned]

The final arbiters have a lifetime job and I do not recall any of them ever being fired?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

What do I believe in?

Well, I believe in the soul... the cock...the pussy... the small of a woman's back... the hangin' curveball... high fiber... good scotch... that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent overrated crap... I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a Constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

i just threw up a little in my mouth.

 

[Anti-Party]

Find a way to stop outsourcing without; Creating air like China's, selling toys with lead paint, paying workers that are the heart and soul of production horrible wages.

Find a way to set profit limits. Societies only thrive when the rich let the money trickle down. The bible says to do it, but it's not being done. It's why corporate profits are at an all time high and wages are at an all time low. It's also why guns and funerals cost so much, no price markup limit.

Stop earmarks.

Sign the WolfPAC http://www.wolf-pac.com/ and end the corporate influence on politics.

End unnecessary war.

We must declare war in order to go to war like the Constitution says.

Police government programs to fix them instead of growing them or ending them.

Make a gun technology act. Congress with reason should be able to discuss new weapon technologies to see if the new technology more necessary in the hands of the right people or more dangerous in the hands of the wrong people.

Allow every state to make porn.

Legalize weed but keep other drugs illegal. Weed is the only drug that sticks around in your system for a long period and the major reason people fail drug tests. It's also the most mild drug. It's only consequence will be the rate it gives people cancer and we will have to pay for the treatment one way or another.

Let gays get married but get gays off my tv. (just kidding) They make me uncomfortable, but I can find other shows.

I could go on for days, GREAT THREAD. I love it.

 

[Anti-Party]

i just threw up a little in my mouth.

I'm sure that happens on a regular basis with you. It's what alchoholics do. The first step is admitting a problem. The second step is shooting yourself...........wait.......maybe I have that wrong. Oh, nevermind.

 

[Robo]

in order to do that, they must have the power of interpretation. anyone can interpret the constitution,

That’s because the Constitution is easily interpreted by anybody with average intelligence. And if they’re honest about their interpretation of it, they will all come to the same conclusions in their interpretations. It says what it says! It’s not mysterious! It lays it out in black and white in the King’s English for ya! Each article and amendment doesn’t have several interpretations, each has only one interpretation. Of course only honest folks will admit that and the dishonest will use the weak & pathetic excuse of ‘multiple interpretations” to support their political biases.

however, we must have one body that is the final arbiter

We do, the courts. Problem is, as I stated. The majority of judges are not constitutionalist as they are sworn to be, but rather they are political ideologues only loyal to their particular politically biased ideologies.

or else we have a million different laws based on constitutional interpretation.

That’s what we do have, but not based on any confusing scripture within the Constitution, but rather based on the political biases of judges. Therefore we have a nation of unconstitutional laws, regulations & constitutional ignorance that are simply constitutional violations made legal. The Drug War, corporate subsidies, the Nanny State Federal Socialist Programming & undeclared unconstitutional wars are the perfect examples.

 

[Robo]

I get the point you are making here, and I somewhat agree with the spirit of what you are saying, but I think you are making two critical mistakes, you are over-simplifying and being alarmist. First off, the Constitution is not easy to interpret, if it were, we wouldn't need a court to decide

Then why did you make the following quote?

Well, the document isn't written in Swahili, so yeah, it's easy to read and understand,

Seems you’re the master of contradicting yourself, huh?

I have explained Goober, that the courts are necessary to “interpret” THE LAW to confirm or deny THE LAW’S validity relative to the confines of the Constitution.

Constitutionality, and we wouldn't need Constitutional scholars who devote years and years of their lives studying the darn thing.

They’re not studying THE CONSTITUTION Goober, They’re studying CASE LAW that has been challenged on constitutional principles!

As I said before, we'd all walk around with a copy in our pocket, and whenever some issue arose, we'd whip out our pocket constitution and show the other party the universally understood interpretation, to which they couldn't contest because they would have interpreted it the same way. This is idealistic, but it's not the world we live in.

That’s what I do Goober!

 

[Robo]

"Promote the general welfare" can mean any number of things to any number of people, it's not exactly clear.

OH! But it is CLEAR Goober as Thomas Jefferson explained.

“To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, to lay taxes of providing for the general welfare. For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” (Thomas Jefferson to George Washington)

Secondly, you want to jump the tracks of sanity and become anarchic. The courts aren't deciding cases based on personal politics. Now, a judge might vote according to his/her personal politics,

Again Goober, you contradict yourself!

There’s no doubt what the judges in today’s world are doing. All one needs to do is look at the decisions they make. The majority opinion of the court is always based on POLITICAL IDEOLOGY and has little to nothing to do with the actual scripture of the Constitution. If a court decision meets constitutional muster it only does so by accident not by any loyalty to constitutionalism.

but every case I've ever read from the SCOTUS contains two opinions, the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion. Both opinions are written interpretations of the Constitution. I've never heard an opinion that was based on personal politics and nothing more. In every case, the opinions are made on sound basis and rooted in fundamental interpretations of the Constitution, not politics.

Horseshit Goober! The court’s decisions are simply based on the majority’s politically biased opinion of the case at issue. They don’t give a tinker’s damn about the Constitution!

It's just that different people see things differently, we don't all see things the same as you.

Of course Goober, that’s because they view everything through politically biased bifocals!!!!