Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The constitution means almost NOTHING anymore. It is apparently so "open to interpretation" that it means whatever the majority in the SCOTUS says it means; no matter how controversial or biased their opinions.
Anymore?
I suppose we could use a thread entitled "Supreme Court History for Dummies" so we could discuss Marbury v Madison (1803); McCulloch v. Maryland (1819); Gibbons v Ogden (1824); Plessy v Ferguson, (1896) just for a start.
Yes it does, yet at the same time the Constitution also grants the government some pretty significant powers.
Funny how that always seems to get left out.
I guess that's why there is a need for threads like "The Constitution for Dummies"
The Constitution grants only the powers specifically stated in the contract. The real problem is when people begin to interpret the contract to give powers it does not.
In the same way to insure our liberty we must have a justice system which presumes innocence, when it comes to governmental power we must always presume liberty over tyranny.
"We Justices read the Constitution in the only way that we can: as ______th Century Americans. We look to the history of the time of the framing and to the intervening history of interpretation. But the ultimate question must be, what do the words of the text mean in our time? For the genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs."
"A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used."
Nothing but an eloquent statement of misguidedness.
The Constitution of the United States was ordained and established not by the States in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the Constitution declares, by "the people of the United States." There can be no doubt that it was competent to the people to invest the general government with all the powers which they might deem proper and necessary, to extend or restrain these powers according to their own good pleasure, and to give them a paramount and supreme authority. As little doubt can there be that the people had a right to prohibit to the States the exercise of any powers which were, in their judgment, incompatible with the objects of the general compact, to make the powers of the State governments, in given cases, subordinate to those of the nation, or to reserve to themselves those sovereign authorities which they might not choose to delegate to either. The Constitution was not, therefore, necessarily carved out of existing State sovereignties, nor a surrender of powers already existing in State institutions, for the powers of the States depend upon their own Constitutions, and the people of every State had the right to modify and restrain them according to their own views of the policy or principle.
To me, the Constitution appears, in every line of it, to be a contract which, in legal language, may be denominated tripartite. The parties are the people, the States, and the United States. It is returning in a circle to contend that it professes to be the exclusive act of the people, for what have the people done but to form this compact?
-Justice Story writing for a unanimous Supreme Court - Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816)
And to add insult to injury:
"It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as imbodied into the several states, who were parties to it and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. They might, by the same authority & by the same process have converted the Confederacy into a mere league or treaty; or continued it with enlarged or abridged powers; or have imbodied the people of their respective States into one people, nation or sovereignty; or as they did by a mixed form make them one people, nation, or sovereignty, for certain purposes, and not so for others.
The Constitution of the U.S. being established by a Competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the several States who were the parties to it, it remains only to inquire what the Constitution is; and here it speaks for itself. It organizes a Government into the usual Legislative Executive & Judiciary Departments; invests it with specified powers, leaving others to the parties to the Constitution; it makes the Government like other Governments to operate directly on the people; places at its Command the needful Physical means of executing its powers; and finally proclaims its supremacy, and that of the laws made in pursuance of it, over the Constitutions & laws of the States; the powers of the Government being exercised, as in other elective & responsible Governments, under the controul of its Constituents, the people & legislatures of the States, and subject to the Revolutionary Rights of the people in extreme cases.
It might have been added, that whilst the Constitution, therefore, is admitted to be in force, its operation, in every respect must be precisely the same, whether its authority be derived from that of the people, in the one or the other of the modes, in question; the authority being equally Competent in both; and that, without an annulment of the Constitution itself its supremacy must be submitted to."
James Madison; Letter to Daniel Webster 15 March 1833
Nice sentiment, but unfortunately a gross oversimplification. Actually, the Constitution does not read "pretty easy." That is why there is an entire legal subject called "Constitutional law." The Constitution can be interpreted legally in different ways as many other laws are. Slightly more complex and politically influenced than you indicate.
This includes the Second Amendment. What if the "founding fathers" really did mean for the Second Amendment to relate to war and real militias (not the Cliven Bundy type).
"There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the drafted and ratified copies, the signed copies on display, and various published transcriptions."
It amazes me when politicians and others claim they can channel the founding fathers. But you apparently know which version is "correct." Unless you are a Constitutional scholar--your interpretation carries no more weight than any other layman's does.
Anybody can say 'give me liberty or give me death.' All depends on what your idea of liberty is and how it may negatively affect society as a whole. Maybe it just depends on one Supreme Court judge and who appointed him that is influencing an entire interpretation.
The Constitution can not be interpreted. It must be taken as written as with any other contract. It means what it says.
Only people who do not like what it says, and have a vested interest in changing what it says, begin to argue interpretation.
Nice sentiment, but unfortunately a gross oversimplification. Actually, the Constitution does not read "pretty easy." That is why there is an entire legal subject called "Constitutional law." The Constitution can be interpreted legally in different ways as many other laws are. Slightly more complex and politically influenced than you indicate.
You should stop letting these people think for you.
The "entire legal subject" is ACTUALLY "how to twist words to get what you want when the real words don't let you".
The legal profession has NO greater understanding of the Constitution than you or I can. Period.
Their years of 'education' are more properly called "learning how to lie".
actually the Second Amendment was carefully crafted so it can have no limitations. That outcome was however unacceptable to the USSC and the vast majority of the 2nd supporters. So we reinterpreted it so that it could be limited.
Our blood thirsty and extreme forefathers wanted the people able to pull down the government. No one in a position of leadership today agrees. So we reinterpreted the problem away.
The Constitution can not be interpreted. It must be taken as written as with any other contract. It means what it says.
Only people who do not like what it says, and have a vested interest in changing what it says, begin to argue interpretation.
What does "cruel and unusual punishments", as used in the 8th Amendment, mean?
What did it mean to "the founders"? (for that matter, who are "the founders"?) How did you determine what "cruel and unusual punishment" meant to "the founders" in 1790? Does it mean the same thing today in 2014 as it did in 1790? When evaluating whether a punishment is cruel and unusual, should the Supreme Court use what they believe it meant to "the founders" in 1790, or what it means to us now?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
