Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-05-2008, 02:41 PM
 
Location: One of the 50 states
95 posts, read 59,885 times
Reputation: 29

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Its function is to interpret the constitution as it was designed and to interpret laws as they were designed (ie the spirit of the law).

The very act of "activism" is honestly the "living" interpretation of the times. When a judge takes in factors to which the law did not intend in order to render a decision, they do so of their own accord.

If the constitution and laws in general are merely meant to be the "readers" interpetation, then what we have is a council of people who decide as they see fit the laws of the land. That is not their purpose, they are not to legislate, that is what congress is for.

The constitution means nothing if it can be changed, altered, and interpreted based on the times. For if it is merely the interpretation that decides its will, then anything can be made to be a justification in its name. It no longer holds as a protection, an affirmation of rights, but simply a document to be used by those who have the power to enforce their own take on its meaning.
I don't agree. Again, laws change as society changes. An interpretation of the Constitution must be applied to the current state of society. The Constitution is a living document; it's not a stagnant relic of the past and should not be examined through such a lens. New issues arise that must be addressed.

And, the Supreme Court does exist, partially, to protect individual rights and privileges from the majority's will. It is, in effect, an upshot of constitutional analysis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-05-2008, 02:41 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,928,755 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Well said, Nomander! Wasn't it SCOTUS Justice William Brennan who once said something like "the genius of the Constitution is in that it can be adapted to fit current needs."?

In other words, he saw it as something that could be stretched and interpretted any way he saw fit to justify imposing his own ideology on the country.
*chuckle*

Well, my worry is that this becomes the status quo. If the constitution is merely a document to be changed as those in power see fit, then well, I refer to Jefferson on that matter and hold to that a government need be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants.

That or maybe us Texans might find it a good time to step away from the table and let the Tyrants rule the sheep or fight for the keep!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2008, 02:44 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,928,755 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolvement View Post
I don't agree. Again, laws change as society changes. An interpretation of the Constitution must be applied to the current state of society. The Constitution is a living document; it's not a stagnant relic of the past and should not be examined through such a lens. New issues arise that must be addressed.

And, the Supreme Court does exist, partially, to protect individual rights and privileges from the majority's will. It is, in effect, an upshot of constitutional analysis.
Then the constitution means nothing. The laws and claims to which it provides are only as good as the masses that subscribe to them. That means, your freedom of speech is merely a handout given to you by masses. When it is time, they can take that away from you and you will have no just position as you subscribe to the changing times of man and his will. That is, there can be no injustice if the majority agrees it is just. Thats scary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2008, 02:48 PM
 
Location: One of the 50 states
95 posts, read 59,885 times
Reputation: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Then the constitution means nothing. The laws and claims to which it provides are only as good as the masses that subscribe to them. That means, your freedom of speech is merely a handout given to you by masses. When it is time, they can take that away from you and you will have no just position as you subscribe to the changing times of man and his will. That is, there can be no injustice if the majority agrees it is just. Thats scary.
No, that's where you're wrong. The Constitution is not void and negated because it is reapplied to assess current times. That's simply not true at all. The Constitution is alive, and law is alive, as new issues must continually be addressed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2008, 02:57 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,928,755 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolvement View Post
No, that's where you're wrong. The Constitution is not void and negated because it is reapplied to assess current times. That's simply not true at all. The Constitution is alive, and law is alive, as new issues must continually be addressed.
Yet, as times change, as people "interpret" things differently, so do the intentions of those protections.

Look at the second amendment and the arguments that proclaim it as "invalid for the times" or even the first where "interpretation" is stretched to be interpreted based on the changing times of the people.

Freedoms are an illusion if they can "readdressed" to "current times". Injustice or a violation of rights will be nothing more than at the mercy of the public to which influences that interpretations.

If you mean a living document to which their truths are unquestioned regardless of time or opinion, then I would agree with you, but that is not what "living" is being interpreted as. This is a road to failure, a road to the submittal of the majorities desires. The forefathers warned us of this most specifically, but we ignore them because, well... this is now, that was then. We know better, we have it all figured out. I'll buy that for a dollar!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2008, 03:04 PM
 
Location: One of the 50 states
95 posts, read 59,885 times
Reputation: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Yet, as times change, as people "interpret" things differently, so do the intentions of those protections.

Look at the second amendment and the arguments that proclaim it as "invalid for the times" or even the first where "interpretation" is stretched to be interpreted based on the changing times of the people.

Freedoms are an illusion if they can "readdressed" to "current times". Injustice or a violation of rights will be nothing more than at the mercy of the public to which influences that interpretations.

If you mean a living document to which their truths are unquestioned regardless of time or opinion, then I would agree with you, but that is not what "living" is being interpreted as. This is a road to failure, a road to the submittal of the majorities desires. The forefathers warned us of this most specifically, but we ignore them because, well... this is now, that was then. We know better, we have it all figured out. I'll buy that for a dollar!
Well, I don't think this is worth discussing with you. I don't think you really understand the implications of what you are professing. It simply does not make any sense at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2008, 03:10 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,928,755 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolvement View Post
Well, I don't think this is worth discussing with you. I don't think you really understand the implications of what you are professing. It simply does not make any sense at all.
Well, I guess if you don't understand, its best to proclaim superiority and place your objection into a position that you can disregard?

No offense evovlement, but you seem to proclaim a truth, yet do not attempt to explain it. You believe these documents protect you as if they were a truth, yet then hold to the principal that truth is relevant to the will of a society. That they can be interpreted by the times and yet times change. Within that change, so can right and wrong, left and right, up and down.

From society these "judges" are born to interpret the law and if they are free to do so using the "times" as a means to their decision, then there is no boundaries to the decisions they can make. There is no protection that is safe for anything can be reasoned its opposite with enough legal wording and faith by the people who subscribe to it. You hold to a position that is at the mercy of the people. The people will decide your rights. They will decide what you can and can't do. The majority is the master.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2008, 03:21 PM
 
Location: One of the 50 states
95 posts, read 59,885 times
Reputation: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Well, I guess if you don't understand, its best to proclaim superiority and place your objection into a position that you can disregard?

No offense evovlement, but you seem to proclaim a truth, yet do not attempt to explain it. You believe these documents protect you as if they were a truth, yet then hold to the principal that truth is relevant to the will of a society. That they can be interpreted by the times and yet times change. Within that change, so can right and wrong, left and right, up and down.

From society these "judges" are born to interpret the law and if they are free to do so using the "times" as a means to their decision, then there is no boundaries to the decisions they can make. There is no protection that is safe for anything can be reasoned its opposite with enough legal wording and faith by the people who subscribe to it. You hold to a position that is at the mercy of the people. The people will decide your rights. They will decide what you can and can't do. The majority is the master.
Your reasoning, if it can be called that, is unbelievably flawed. It's clear you've never taken a Constitutional Law course, since your claims are essentially baseless and show no comprehension of the way in which the Constitution and the Supreme Court system work.

This isn't your Bible that we are talking about here, as much as it's clear that you wish it was. The Constitution is not exclusive and is not subject to the boundaries that you would seek to ideologically impose upon it. It's an objective, living document and contemporary issues are filtered through it to arrive at liberty and justice. By your logic, the last 200+ years of judicial scrutiny and ruling should be thrown to the wind because it reflects a change in the constructs and evolution of society. That is absolute lunacy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2008, 03:38 PM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,559,955 times
Reputation: 5943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
From society these "judges" are born to interpret the law and if they are free to do so using the "times" as a means to their decision, then there is no boundaries to the decisions they can make. There is no protection that is safe for anything can be reasoned its opposite with enough legal wording and faith by the people who subscribe to it. You hold to a position that is at the mercy of the people. The people will decide your rights. They will decide what you can and can't do. The majority is the master.

Once again, right on the mark, Nomander. I don't pretend in the least to be a constitutional scholar, but it doesn't take much more than a laymans interest and a bit of common sense to figure out that, if indeed the Constitution is a "living document" and the basic principle of "stare decisis" mean nothing, then, paradoxically, even the decisions brought about by activist courts and held sacrosanct by those who embrace such an outlook, can be overruled.

A great example is Brown v. Board of Education. Few argue at all with the morality of the decision. But it was based on logic that could just as easily lend itself to its own demise. As an aside note here, I once took a course in Constitutional Law and the professor, a rabid supporter (although we became good friends) of the "liberal" vision of constitutional interpretation and equally of the Brown decision, said himself that it was based on extremely specious rationale. To wit, sociological findings rather than supported in constitutional findings.

The point is, that if "current needs" or "sociological findings" can be used to declare segregated schools unconstitutional...then why could not the same (and there is evidence that young black males do better in schools with mostly male black teachers as role models) be used as the basis to once again declare them "constitutional"? And order them again segregated "with all deliberate speed"?

Anyway, although I am sure you may have already read it, here is a great article on the general subject:

How Tyranny Came to America (aka God, Man, and Law)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2008, 04:00 PM
 
Location: One of the 50 states
95 posts, read 59,885 times
Reputation: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Once again, right on the mark, Nomander. I don't pretend in the least to be a constitutional scholar, but it doesn't take much more than a laymans interest and a bit of common sense to figure out that, if indeed the Constitution is a "living document" and the basic principle of "stare decisis" mean nothing, then, paradoxically, even the decisions brought about by activist courts and held sacrosanct by those who embrace such an outlook, can be overruled.

A great example is Brown v. Board of Education. Few argue at all with the morality of the decision. But it was based on logic that could just as easily lend itself to its own demise. As an aside note here, I once took a course in Constitutional Law and the professor, a rabid supporter (although we became good friends) of the "liberal" vision of constitutional interpretation and equally of the Brown decision, said himself that it was based on extremely specious rationale. To wit, sociological findings rather than supported in constitutional findings.

The point is, that if "current needs" or "sociological findings" can be used to declare segregated schools unconstitutional...then why could not the same (and there is evidence that young black males do better in schools with mostly male black teachers as role models) be used as the basis to once again declare them "constitutional"? And order them again segregated "with all deliberate speed"?

Anyway, although I am sure you may have already read it, here is a great article on the general subject:

How Tyranny Came to America (aka God, Man, and Law)
I really don't see what you're getting at. This isn't about the validity of court decisions and how they could potentially be reversed. You are raising legal questions that are not pertinent to the topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:42 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top