Justice Scalia to retire

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cancel4
  • Start date Start date
Threedee said:
Southern Man, do you ever shut the fuck up? Its not important. Hell, when the rep point thing started, Superfreak got neg repped by all of the liberals on the board so that he had less than -1000 points, but rather than bitch about it, he claimed it as a badge of honor in the ideological struggle, and patiently waited to be repped back into positive range, and he has remained there ever since.
Click to expand...

he got admin rep back....it wasn't just user rep....he jumped a bit
 
Annie said:
No shit sherlock, my original point. You were the one to cite Art. III, like there was something there about 'interpretation.' So WTF were you meaning with what you posted?
Click to expand...

Your profanity is hardly worth anybody’s time, but if what I posted from Article III does not give the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution, what does the passage about law and fact mean?

http://www.landmarkcases.org/marbury/judicialpower.html

From The Federalist, number 78, Alexander Hamilton:

“If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers . . . it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”
 
flaja said:
Your profanity is hardly worth anybody’s time, but if what I posted from Article III does not give the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution, what does the passage about law and fact mean?

http://www.landmarkcases.org/marbury/judicialpower.html

From The Federalist, number 78, Alexander Hamilton:

“If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers . . . it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”
Click to expand...
Exactly. The courts INTERPRET laws in accordance to the limits of the Constitution. They ASCERTAIN the meaning of the Constitution with respect to the law(s) under examination. ie: THIS is what the relevant portion of the Constitution means in relation to this law/regulation/action.

The Constitution is not "vague". It says EXACTLY what the federal government is allowed to do. The only places it is "vague" (and intentionally so) is in defining the specific authority of the states. (That is for the state constitutions to handle - but the feds don;t like that answer.) It DOES state specifically that if a power is NOT enumerated to the federal government, then it does not belong to the federal government, but rather is reserved to the states, or the people. The fact that the federal government has, for all intents and purposes, ignored 90% of those limitations for the past 150+ years is irrelevant. Ignorant fuckups who want mommy government to tuck them in at night and keep them "safe" from boogy men in the closet like it that way, so they come up with this "interpret the Constitution" bullshit. What use is ANY document whose meaning can be changed at whim according to the political philosophy of the standing majority of the time?

People who understand how fragile is the balance between federal authority and liberty do not like it. The Constitution says what it says. There are gaps in it, such as the lack of specific checks against law enforcement if they violate the protections of the BOR. SCOTUS stepped up with the exclusionary rule. That is a decent plug, but the problem with that method is a future court could reverse the exclusionary rule (there have been some encroachments of recent) and then law enforcement has nothing to keep them from "accidentally" violating our rights at will. The PROPER response should have been for the courts to make the decision they did, and then the people to plug the hole in the more permanent means of amendment.

When the courts decide they need to "interpret" what the constitution means, that is EXACTLY when we start running into poor decisions. Interstate commerce has a definition. It had a definition in 1787. The idea that a court has to come up with their OWN legal definition of that or any other phrase in the constitution we may as well toss the thing away. (Which is exactly what we are doing.)

There was no serious objection to the Marbury Decision because they stated the same thing. The decisions states that the duty of the (appellate) courts to resolve conflicts between laws, or between a laws and the Constitution:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
Click to expand...

So in cases where a law is in conflict, the Court decides whether the law is to be upheld, or whether the Constitution takes precedence. It is not an unreasonable stance when this statement is added to the rest of the opinion. Taking note of the following additional portion of Marbury, it becomes apparent which the Marbury decision intends to be the superior document.
The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
Click to expand...
(Kinda what I've beeen saying, isn't it?)

Nowhere does the Marbury decision say it is the duty of the courts to interpret the Constitution. Quite the opposite, the opinion states that it is the LAW that must be interpreted according to the case before the court, to determine if there is a conflict with the Constitution, with the understanding that the Constitution is the superior document to any and all legislated laws.
 
Last edited:
∞zo;471420 said:
Yes lets clear this up once and for all, I'm not a fucking retard. When you give someone a billion rep points, they are going to have fun with it. I gave them rep points, I knew they were going to down mod the shit out of people, and I thought it was awesome. I have zero regrets, because it's an arbitrary number online. As such, it's possible I will do it again in the future. Anyone that invests any other type of importance into such things is a LOSER.
Click to expand...

I found it funny; because it let me prove once again, that Liberals will always abuse any power they get. No matter how little it is.

:moped:<:lol:

Forgot to add, that this ISN'T in reference to Grind; before the haters try to stir up more crap.
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
Exactly. The courts INTERPRET laws in accordance to the limits of the Constitution. They ASCERTAIN the meaning of the Constitution with respect to the law(s) under examination.
Click to expand...

Meaning the Court must interpret the Constitution. The Court cannot decide whether or not a law or government action is constitutional if the Court does first determine what the Constitution means. The Founding Fathers had no intention of binidng future generations, in circumstances that they could not envision, to their personal interpretation of the Constitution.

http://abetterconstitution.com/

"’No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation…Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.’—Thomas Jefferson (in a letter to James Madison from Paris, September 6, 1789)

“’It would give me singular pleasure to see [this principle] first announced in the proceedings of the U. States, and always kept in their view, as a salutary curb on the living generation from imposing unjust or unnecessary burdens on their successors.’—James Madison (responding to Jefferson’s letter from New York, February 4, 1790)

“’The warmest friends and best supporters the Constitution has, do not contend that it is free from imperfections; but they found them unavoidable and are sensible, if evil is likely to arise there from, the remedy must come hereafter; for in the present moment, it is not to be obtained; and as there is a Constitutional door open for it, I think the People (for it is with them to Judge) can as they will have the advantage of experience on their Side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments which are necessary [as] ourselves. I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us.’—George Washington (in a letter to Bushrod Washington, November 10, 1797)

“‘That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety…; and, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.’—George Mason (in Article One of Virginia’s original Constitution, 1776)”.

There is no original intent and it up to the Court to interpret the law and the Constitution as the times warrant. The Constitution means whatever the Congress, the President and Courts say it means and whatever the electorate is willing to accept. Get over it.
 
DNC said:
He's 73. By the end of President Obama's second term, he'll be 81.

Roberts is 54, Alito is 59 and Thomas 61, so unless "something" happens they may make it a few more years.

Congress has the right to impeach a Supreme Court Justice.

Impeachment is a two-step process; articles of impeachment are presented and the House of Representatives passes them by a simple majority, the Justice is "impeached," and proceeds to trial in the Senate.

The Senate trial determines whether a Justice (or other officeholder) should be removed from office on the basis of the evidence presented at impeachment.

The Senate needs a 2/3 super majority for conviction. We're nearly there!
Click to expand...
What in the world are you talking about?
 
flaja said:
Meaning the Court must interpret the Constitution. The Court cannot decide whether or not a law or government action is constitutional if the Court does first determine what the Constitution means. The Founding Fathers had no intention of binidng future generations, in circumstances that they could not envision, to their personal interpretation of the Constitution.

http://abetterconstitution.com/

"’No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation…Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.’—Thomas Jefferson (in a letter to James Madison from Paris, September 6, 1789)

“’It would give me singular pleasure to see [this principle] first announced in the proceedings of the U. States, and always kept in their view, as a salutary curb on the living generation from imposing unjust or unnecessary burdens on their successors.’—James Madison (responding to Jefferson’s letter from New York, February 4, 1790)

“’The warmest friends and best supporters the Constitution has, do not contend that it is free from imperfections; but they found them unavoidable and are sensible, if evil is likely to arise there from, the remedy must come hereafter; for in the present moment, it is not to be obtained; and as there is a Constitutional door open for it, I think the People (for it is with them to Judge) can as they will have the advantage of experience on their Side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments which are necessary [as] ourselves. I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us.’—George Washington (in a letter to Bushrod Washington, November 10, 1797)

“‘That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety…; and, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.’—George Mason (in Article One of Virginia’s original Constitution, 1776)”.

There is no original intent and it up to the Court to interpret the law and the Constitution as the times warrant. The Constitution means whatever the Congress, the President and Courts say it means and whatever the electorate is willing to accept. Get over it.
Click to expand...

you are wrong, plain and simple. the government did not write the constitution nor did they ratify it. the people are the soveriegn power in this country and have prescribed method of amending the constitution if needed. It is a usurpation of power for any government entity to interpret the constitution in any other way than what is plainly written.
 
flaja said:
The Constitution means whatever the Congress, the President and Courts say it means and whatever the electorate is willing to accept. Get over it.
Click to expand...
"It means what we say it means" is a load of fucking crap. It is the antithesis of the very intent of having a constitution. If the Constitution means whatever the government it is supposed to control wants it to mean, then we may as well install an absolute tyranny now and be done with it. No, I will NOT "get over it". I spent my entire adult life under oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The domestic part means mindlees totalitarian assholes like you.

What did you have to say about the Constitution when it was Bush & Co. crapping all over it? What did you say about the FISA laws when it was Bush in power? I would be willing to bet you were right there with all the others complaining about Bush's tromping on the Constitution.

You are not only totally ignorant of the REAL Constitution, your philosophy is a genuine danger to the principles of liberty this nation is founded on. And to top it off, as is typical of your type, you are also among the biggest hypocrites in the history of mankind.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you are wrong, plain and simple. the government did not write the constitution nor did they ratify it. the people are the soveriegn power in this country and have prescribed method of amending the constitution if needed. It is a usurpation of power for any government entity to interpret the constitution in any other way than what is plainly written.
Click to expand...

I see you cannot tell us what your credentials are when it comes to explaining the Constitution. I guess you must not be the expert you claimed to be.
 
flaja said:
I see you cannot tell us what your credentials are when it comes to explaining the Constitution. I guess you must not be the expert you claimed to be.
Click to expand...

all you need to do is look at all my posts concerning the constitution, but congrats on joining the moron club for demanding letters after someones name before acceptance of their intelligence is accepted.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
all you need to do is look at all my posts concerning the constitution, but congrats on joining the moron club for demanding letters after someones name before acceptance of their intelligence is accepted.
Click to expand...

wow lashing out at those who value education. lOFL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top