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.
lmao... The Constitution is a grand legal document. I'm not American, and even I think this.
But without sounding offensive, I think the Founding Fathers should be taken with a pinch of salt. I think a lot of their ideas, no matter how good/noble they may seem, did not apply to all Americans. Only white, wealthy land-owners.
Generalizations do nothing to add to the conversation and help others understand your views. Exactly which ideas of the Constitution are you referring to that only benefit white, wealthy land-owners?
And why has America been the #1 destination for immigration from all over the world (at least until our current government strayed so far from the original founding principles)? Why didn't they all go home when the found out our nation's Constitution and Founding Principles were designed to only benefit white, wealthy land-owners?
And our modern politicians have tons of servants that they don't even pay a living wage; usually immigrants who don't know all the labor laws and protections that the politician will ignore (unless up for a big promotion and in the media spotlight, when all is forgiven when the back taxes are paid).
Any politician in my lifetime (except, of course, Libertarians) wouldn't have written a Constitution that gave ANY rights to the non-rich, or ANY limits to the growth and power of government. In fact, modern Republicrat politicians (particular the leader of them all) pay absolutely no attention to the Constitution or other legal limits to government expansion anyway.
As to the Founding Fathers, it was socially acceptable at the time and the modern wage-slavery subsidized by taxpayer welfare had not yet developed. But even with this great liberal "sin," they STILL designed a nation that constrained Big Government and kept power from the tyrannical federal level, PROHIBITED ANY INCOME TAX on the working class, and in general made into law protections for the citizen from government abuse. If the Founding Fathers lived today, they would be Libertarians, and the far-left liberal Republicrats in Washington would be calling them crazy, radical, and just a lunatic fringe.
We can all agree the Commerce clause should be removed, or at the very least should be limited to a very clear definition.
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps vague terms like "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce among the states" were made deliberately vague by the Founding Fathers for a reason? [Article I; Section 8] They knew they were creating a document that would have to endure for many years. They didn't want absolute set concrete meanings. They wanted enough "fluidity" in the Constitution that it could have enough flexibility to last for decades, perhaps, even centuries. Although, personally, I think they would be surprised that we have chosen to amend the Constitution as rarely as we have.
Quote:
Do you think Congress should have the ability to overrule the SCOTUS on the rulings of the court?
No, Congress's responsibility is to make or pass laws. The President's job is to enforce laws. The Courts' job is to interpret laws. Since the Constitution is the "basic" or "main" law in America, the courts couldn't exercise that power which is granted them under Article III of the Constitution without being able to interpret the Constitution. If Congress was given the power to overrule the Supreme Court, it would take the power to interpret the law away from them. Congress is far too political a body to have this sort of power. Politics are present on the Supreme Court too, but to a lesser degree than in the other branches of government.
Quote:
Wickard v. Filburn and Miller v. US was all a giant stabs on the Constitution do to FDR`s assault on the Supreme Court.
We aren't going to agree on much of everything. I think FDR is the second greatest President of all time (Lincoln being No. 1). All Wickard v. Filburn did was recognize the obvious. If you have a bunch of small farmers growing crops, while anyone of them may or may not be producing a significant amount of commerce when you add all of them together, the affect on interstate commerce may be quite substantial.
I believe that when the framers wrote the Constitution that they intended it as a living document that is meant for an expanding and vibrant nation.
I don't think that even one of the nine justices currently on the U.S. Supreme Court would share your views. That says a great deal when one realizes how conservative men like Scalia, Alito, and Thomas are. Your views are too "off the wall" to be anywhere near mainstream or worthy of serious consideration.
Most people belive that the following "rights" are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. And many of them are "strict" constitutionalists. I interpret that to mean there is no liberty to vary from the exact words of the Constitution.
Myth 10: Guarantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
Fact: Stated in the Declaration of Independence. Not mentioned in the Constitution
Myth: 9. The U.S. is a Christian nation
Fact: Nowhere in the Constitution can you find "God" mentioned. To be totally fair, there’s that ONE part in the Constitution that says: “Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven”
Myth: 8. No taxation without representation
Fact: It’s actually quite scary how many taxes are levied today in America without any representation. Most of those ARE taxes imposed on foreigners (both laborers and tourists) who have no representatives in the US government so it might not seem like such a big deal to you if you’re a regular citizen. But know that the Constitution, as it stands now, really doesn’t protect you from being taxed without representation somewhere down the line. To be fair again, the Constitution DOES give Congress the "Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises”. Since Congress is representative, some would say that they can leap to stating there is no taxation without representation. But nowhere can the exact words be found in the Constitution.
Myth 7: The Right to Vote
Fact: The US Constitution actually does mention voting a number of times, like how you cannot deny anyone the chance to vote based on gender, race etc. But nowhere in there is there a mention about the unequivocal RIGHT to vote. Why does that matter? Because it means that states can pretty much deny the right to vote to anyone they want, as long as it’s not based on gender, race etc. Say California didn't want fat people to vote---there is no Constitutional provision to prevent it.
Myth 6: Unrestricted Freedom of Speech
Fact: Congress will make no law to stop you from shouting “Bullsh*t” at a nunnery and that’s great but it doesn’t say anything about laws NOT passed by Congress. Take a typical college campus. If tomorrow your college decided to ban the public uttering of verbs then that would be A-OK with the Constitution. The office you work at forbids you from using the letter E in conversations? Tough luck – perfectly legal. If that depresses you, take comfort in the fact that the above also mean that it’s illegal for some dumbass to yell “Fire!” in a crowded cinema. We just have to take the good with the bad.
Myth 5: Paper Money
Fact: The Constitution gives the right to Government to "COIN" money, but not to print it. Printed money did exist back then, and it was a pretty hot topic. The original version of the Constitution did explicitly permit the government to print paper money but many of the dignitaries were so against the idea that the phrase had to be taken out of the document. In reality, the only reason we have paper money today is because of an 1871 Supreme Court decision.
Myth 4: Marriage
Fact:
Lately all talks of marriage seem to be of the gay variety and its validity. No matter what your opinion on it might be, we can all agree that it’s an important social issue which needs to be resolved and what better place to start with than the Constitution? So what does the document say about marriage? Is it solely a union between a man and a woman? But of course the Constitution makes no mention of marriage. Social conventions, which marriage is a part of, is not really something you worry about while founding a country. The issues of what constitute marriage are thus left entirely to individual states because who’s better suited to decide what’s “normal” for a society than state-level legislature?
Myth 3: Innocence Until Proven Guilty
Fact: The concept is actually more British than tea and rampaging wealth disparity because that’s where it originated: In British law. The Constitution makes no mention of it because by the time the document was drafted the Presumed Innocence bit was so common throughout the Western world that it actually did become common law, so it was in no need of codification.
Myth 2: Jury of Your Peers
Fact: Well, the Constitution does make mention of juries in a couple of places guaranteeing that you get one and that they are impartial. But the “peers” part? That ain’t there and never was, and for good reason, because how do you even define a “peer”? What criteria are to be used? If a rapist is going to have a jury of his peers does that mean twelve other rapists?
Myth 1: Separation of Church and State
Fact: The phrase actually comes from a Thomas Jefferson letter where he was commenting on the 1st Amendment but you might be surprised to learn that personal correspondence doesn't have and should not have legislative power. The Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion but that doesn’t mean that a government, be it federal or state, has to separate itself from religion.
Nah, none of the above is original with me. Go to the link to read more detail and see comments by a number of readers.
But it IS a STRICT view of the Constitution. The fact is, none of us, not liberals, not conservatives, not moderates, wants a completely STRICT interpretation of the Constitution. All of us desire it to be manipulated to fit our own particular beliefs--and it has been.
My favorite one is the Second Amendment. People in droves are calling for a STRICT interpretation. But the interpretation given now is NOT the interpretation of the courts in the first one hundred years of our nation's existence.
Quote:
For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.
So a return to STRICT interpretation of the Second Amendment would move us back to the earliest days of our nation in which MILITIAS held pre-eminence over individuals for the right to bear arms. Now this is sure to get the dander up of some "right to bear arms" folks. But at least do a little historical study before sounding off.
I'm not saying that ANY of these ways are the correct way to interpret the Constitution. What I'm trying to say is that the OP has started a thread that has potentially as many interpretations as we have people living in the country. NOT ONE SINGLE GROUP has a consistent interpretation of the Constitution. All of them have an interpretation molded to fit how they WANT the Constitution to be interpreted.
But the really great thing is that we do have a Constitution that has grown with us in how it has been interpreted. It will grow and change still again. Neither Congress, nor the President, nor the Supreme Court should have supreme sway over how our nation is governed. It's called a "balance of powers". It's just that many groups are always rooting for one branch or the other to have more sway than the others.
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps vague terms like "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce among the states" were made deliberately vague by the Founding Fathers for a reason? [Article I; Section 8] They knew they were creating a document that would have to endure for many years. They didn't want absolute set concrete meanings. They wanted enough "fluidity" in the Constitution that it could have enough flexibility to last for decades, perhaps, even centuries. Although, personally, I think they would be surprised that we have chosen to amend the Constitution as rarely as we have.
No, Congress's responsibility is to make or pass laws. The President's job is to enforce laws. The Courts' job is to interpret laws. Since the Constitution is the "basic" or "main" law in America, the courts couldn't exercise that power which is granted them under Article III of the Constitution without being able to interpret the Constitution. If Congress was given the power to overrule the Supreme Court, it would take the power to interpret the law away from them. Congress is far too political a body to have this sort of power. Politics are present on the Supreme Court too, but to a lesser degree than in the other branches of government.
We aren't going to agree on much of everything. I think FDR is the second greatest President of all time (Lincoln being No. 1). All Wickard v. Filburn did was recognize the obvious. If you have a bunch of small farmers growing crops, while anyone of them may or may not be producing a significant amount of commerce when you add all of them together, the affect on interstate commerce may be quite substantial.
I believe that when the framers wrote the Constitution that they intended it as a living document that is meant for an expanding and vibrant nation.
I don't think that even one of the nine justices currently on the U.S. Supreme Court would share your views. That says a great deal when one realizes how conservative men like Scalia, Alito, and Thomas are. Your views are too "off the wall" to be anywhere near mainstream or worthy of serious consideration.
See above.
Yeah I mean that is what the founder had in mind after they fought a all powerful government, they want to give congress the power to do anything they want, to pass any bill they want, to tax what ever they want...I mean that is what the founders had in mind right guys?
So let me get this straight you agree with the SCOTUS, that the US government has the right o regulate interstate commerce even when no commerce is taking place? let alone interstate Commence?
If you knew anything about FDR you would know it is one of the worst presidents ever to hold office.
here a few good reason why.
The gold confiscation act.
The new deal which prolonged the depression
The National Firearms Act, which did nothing to reduce crime but taxed a basic civil right out of the reach of the Average American
Oh and who could forget about eh Japanese's American interment act?
I believe that when the framers wrote the Constitution that they intended it as a living document that is meant for an expanding and vibrant nation.
I do not see it that way. They created a document that gave some principles that do not change. They also created some guidelines that can apply.
Examples:
The Federal government has clearly delineated responsibilites.
The responsibilities not listed belong to the states.
To me as time passed by the Federal Government has taken more and more power away from the states little by little. Today they have laws to what type of toilet you should have.
Jefferson did say that laws change as time goes by with the newer generations. I understand that but principles in the Constitution remain the same. Sadly, today from the Supreme Court down judges have been policy setters and have taken too much power. In the beginning of our nation the Supreme Court was the body with the least power and that is how the Constitution reflected. They are simply to enforce what it says in the Spirit of it.
Today lawyers are not trained with that in mind. Actually, in law schools they get trained in case law more so than constitutional law. Many of them have not even read the Constitution in its entirety.
In one case that went to the Supreme Court a lawyer present his case using the Founding Fathers writings to prove his case. A supreme court justice has the gull to say that they did not know what they were doing when the drafted the part of the Constitution THEY wrote! Take care.
Yeah I mean that is what the founder had in mind after they fought a all powerful government, they want to give congress the power to do anything they want, to pass any bill they want, to tax what ever they want...I mean that is what the founders had in mind right guys?
Since the Congress has never passed, the executive ever proposed, or the Supreme Court ever allowed the federal government to do anything that it wants, tax whatever it wanted, I find the argument specious and hyperbolic. I also have come to understand that most folks who make such arguments only have a cliff-note understanding of the evolution from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, a grasp of the constitutional convention debates, or the series of Court decisions that have led to the present day decisions regarding the Commerce or Tax and Spend clauses of the Constitution much less the facts that were presented in those cases.
Oh, well.
Case in point,
Quote:
So let me get this straight you agree with the SCOTUS, that the US government has the right o regulate interstate commerce even when no commerce is taking place? let alone interstate Commence?
Supreme Court decisions are decided on the facts before it, not some nebulous open ended catch phrases.
Supreme Court decisions are decided on the facts before it, not some nebulous open ended catch phrases.
That reminded me of a farmer that harvested some produce for his animals. Not to sell anywhere. He just planted and harvested to keep his animals alive. He was fined by the federal inspectors using the interstate law. I believe he was above a certain limit. His case went all the way to the Supreme Court. Now this case is used constantly by the Government to interfere in many situation many violates the spirit of the interstate commerce clause. I do not remembe the farmers name nor what he produced but maybe somebody does. Take care.
an interchange of goods or commodities, especially on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce) trade; business.
If nothing is interchange/bought/sold/ or given away is Commerce happening?
If this a feeble reference to the Affordable Health Care act, its a rather facile argument to try and assert that the non-purchase of health insurance and the associated has no bearing on the efficiency of commerce or its concomitant effects on the the interchange of goods and services, as well as the health of the overall economy. But having said that, as you should know the decision in NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS et al. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al. was decided not on the Commerce Clause but rather the power authorized by the Tax and Spend Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
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.
Ten things the Constitution doesn't say
