Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Drudge: WAKE UP CALL: TEXAS GOV. BACK RESOLUTION AFFIRMING SOVEREIGNTY

Taylor4Life

By Taylor4Life
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Tulane Skins Fan

Tulane Skins Fan

Posted
Posted
You know? after looking back at my post, I realized that it was defensive and petty.

It wasnt fair of me to say that and I'll edit it.

I guess I was feeling that you were seeing yourself as the constitutional expert while picking on others who were also seeing themselves as experts.

point is, none of us are experts, only adherents to what we see as the role and scope of the document.

I'm sorry for being somewhat nasty earlier.

No worries, SS... I am not gonna get pissy with you after one post. Besides, I'm sure I've been more smug to you in some of mine.

That being said, my point throughout this thread is this:

First, I, personally, do know more about the Constitution than probably 95% of this board as a lawyer. I do have to deal with it, indirectly at least, every day. I also had to develop skills and have a basic groundwork for how to read the Constitution that 95% of this board does not have.

Secondly, perhaps more importantly, I don't really know jack about the 10th Amendment, but I know that its not as simple as nearly all the people in this thread are making it sound. I know this because of the basic understanding of Constitutional Law that I do have.

Not trying to toot my own horn or anything, but it is at times both frustrating and funny to read everyone who so simply interprets the constitution with no basis for their arguments other than "that's what it says."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnyderShrugged

SnyderShrugged

Posted
Posted
No worries, SS... I am not gonna get pissy with you after one post. Besides, I'm sure I've been more smug to you in some of mine.

That being said, my point throughout this thread is this:

First, I, personally, do know more about the Constitution than probably 95% of this board as a lawyer. I do have to deal with it, indirectly at least, every day. I also had to develop skills and have a basic groundwork for how to read the Constitution that 95% of this board does not have.

Secondly, perhaps more importantly, I don't really know jack about the 10th Amendment, but I know that its not as simple as nearly all the people in this thread are making it sound. I know this because of the basic understanding of Constitutional Law that I do have.

Not trying to toot my own horn or anything, but it is at times both frustrating and funny to read everyone who so simply interprets the constitution with no basis for their arguments other than "that's what it says."

Thanks bro!

On the interpretation issue... I think (and this is a personal opinion) that the framers wrote it to be simple in interpretation thus the common citizen could understand what it means. The SC was to be used for clarification when needed.

I know there are opinions out there that fall on either side of my opinion, but thats what I believe.

I also take some small issue with case law often being seen as overriding the literal and specific meaning of the constitution. I think the reliance on case law has polluted our legal and constitutional purity overall. (again, just my humble opinion)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pwyl

Pwyl

Posted
Posted
Well, that question presupposes that we actually know what the constitution means, in all situations.

I'm not talking about all situations... The thought came up in response to people talking about the SC reversing some decisions, and the fact that those decisions were reversed because the meaning of the constitution had changed.

(I'm not really trying to make a point or anything I was just wondering)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
Erm... you do know that the Supreme Court has reversed its own decisions numerous times in the past, right? Both rulings can't be right.

1) Yes, they can.

2) The question was "Does the Supreme Court have the Constitutional power to interpret the Constitution?" Not "Has the Supreme Court been granted the Papal power of infallibility?"

I seem to recall the Constitution granting that power to the Court. I don't recall any clause stating that that power ceased to apply if the Supreme Court ever makes a decision that you disagree with, or if it ever revises one of it's earlier decisions.

The reason you're not getting any bites on your continued attempts to yell "Look! The Supreme Court was wrong, once!", is because it has nothing to do with the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
With respect to the Constitution, you can't read the Constitution strictly and conclude the Supreme Court can be wrong with respect to the Constitution.

Oh, yes I can.

I don't recall anything, strict or otherwise, in the Constitution claiming that the Supreme Court is infallible.

I'm an American, dammit, and I can announce that the Supreme Court is wrong any time I feel like it.

(They'll still have their authority after I'm done. But I have the right to say they're wrong.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted
Why have it if it does?

Personally, I feel it's design containing the ammendment process, fits the bill for modern issues.

I agree, BUT the Supreme Court has essentially said it does when they overturn themselves (even see the ruling with respect to Michigan law school affirmative action policies and some of O'Connors).

You can't logically hold a strict reading of the Constitution and conclude that the meaning of the Constitution isn't subject to change because it is clear from the Constitution that the Supreme Court has the authority to interpert it, and if they say its meaning can change, then it must.

I don't know when the first one was, but I'll also point out the overturning of prescedence isn't even a recent occurence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
Well, that question presupposes that we actually know what the constitution means, in all situations.

If you have time I would like your opinion on the interpretation and application in this sense.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/132893.html

How can a right that was "unimagined" in this sense be a constitutional right?

According to the court, "equal protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation." But if the justices had defined equal protection by the standards of this generation (in Iowa, at least), they would have let the gay marriage ban stand.

"The point in time when the standard of equal protection finally takes a new form," the court said, "is a product of the conviction of one, or many, individuals that a particular grouping results in inequality and the ability of the judicial system to perform its constitutional role free from the influences that tend to make society's understanding of equal protection resistant to change." Let's be frank: Under this approach, it does not take "one, or many, individuals" to change the meaning of the constitution. It takes exactly four.

As the court noted, legislatures draw distinctions between groups all the time. They establish criminal penalties, impose age restrictions, and set conditions for government benefits. If such policy judgments violate equal protection whenever four justices disagree with the reasoning behind them, the line between what judges do and what legislatures do begins to disappear.

Worse, this sort of result-oriented jurisprudence cannot be confined to decisions that limit government and expand freedom. If courts can reach "a new understanding of equal protection" that renders invalid heretofore constitutional laws, they also can reach a new understanding of the First Amendment, allowing restrictions on political speech in the name of fighting corruption, or the Commerce Clause, allowing the federal government to intervene in areas previously reserved to the states or the people.

In these and other cases, changing conditions are said to require reinterpretation, and since no constitution is perfect you or I may occasionally like the results. But over the long term we cannot count on an evolving constitution to protect our rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...