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 01-12-2011, 08:04 PM
 
7,237 posts, read 12,740,179 times
Reputation: 5669

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
The constitution is pretty clear, I think it is the application where things have failed. For example the Commerce clause which gives the Federal government the right to regulate commerce between the states has been more broadly interpreted than originally intended. The courts have esentially given the Federal government unlimited ability to regulate our lives. Essentially the modern interpretation of the constitution allows the government to force us to buy anything, including health insurance. This is most assuredly not something the founding fathers wanted.

So essentially the constitution is pretty clear, it is the interpretation to apply it to modern circumstances that has failed.
That's your opinion.

The US is more than 10 times the size it was when the constitution was orginally drafted and the social standards have changed quite a bit sicne then as well. Foy anyone to base an opinion off what the Founding Fathers would have done in their time is ludracris IMO. That's the exact reason the Founding Fathers left room to amendments and strategically drafted the constitution vaguely enough for these events (stated at the beginning of my post).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-12-2011, 08:05 PM
 
Location: The Woods
18,356 posts, read 26,489,954 times
Reputation: 11350
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
The constitution is vague. You get ten kitchen table lawyers in a room and you'll get 10 different interpretations of the meaning of each word. Our founding fathers were smart. They set up a judicial branch of government whose only function is to interpret the constitution as it applies to law. The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court of the United States says it means and that's the way the founding fathers intended it to be.
Wrong. Many of the founders argued against the SCOTUS having the ultimate say over the Constitution (notably, Jefferson). The Constitution never lists the judicial branch as "interpreting" the Constitution. It was meant to be easily understood by any reasonably educated, literate person of that day. Get out a dictionary of that period and it is very clear what it means.

The people have the final say, via amendment, constitutional convention, and the second amendment as a last resort.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 08:05 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,813,019 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
The constitution is pretty clear, I think it is the application where things have failed. For example the Commerce clause which gives the Federal government the right to regulate commerce between the states has been more broadly interpreted than originally intended.
You'd asked earlier about vagueness of the constitution. When you start talking about "intent" as opposed to absolute laws and rigidity (the constitution is not that, and I'm sure you know that), you're participating in that vagueness (may not be the correct word to use, but you get the point).

As for the commerce clause, it is up to the supreme court to interpret any law as being constitutional or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 08:05 PM
 
Location: Arizona
13,778 posts, read 9,660,467 times
Reputation: 7485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirdik View Post
See, there's a huge difference between a limited government and no government.
So in the end, the real debate is WHERE you limit government. This is the elephant in the political room.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 08:06 PM
 
7,237 posts, read 12,740,179 times
Reputation: 5669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirdik View Post
See, there's a huge difference between a limited government and no government.
Just as there's a huge difference between more government and total government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 08:09 PM
 
5,915 posts, read 4,812,128 times
Reputation: 1398
Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather View Post
Just as there's a huge difference between more government and total government.
More government is the straight path to total government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 08:10 PM
 
7,237 posts, read 12,740,179 times
Reputation: 5669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirdik View Post
More government is the straight path to total government.
And one can argue the same thing for limited government---> no government (using your logic).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 08:10 PM
 
5,915 posts, read 4,812,128 times
Reputation: 1398
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
So in the end, the real debate is WHERE you limit government. This is the elephant in the political room.
Again, our government has to shrink to a size when it can pay its bills without borrowing money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 08:11 PM
 
29,981 posts, read 42,926,416 times
Reputation: 12828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonian123 View Post
As an American, I support the Constitution as much as any Tea Party supporter. Our current government DOES adhere to the Constitution. What are these parts that are un-Constitutional? Why hasn't anyone gone to the Supreme Court?
You comparison was between the Tea Party and anarchy. The Tea Party wants stricter adherence to the limits of power enumerated to the federal government in the Constitution. Anarchists are against all government. Do you understand the difference between lawful governance and no governance; or, was this just another "attack the Tea Party" thread?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 08:12 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,813,019 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
The Constitution never lists the judicial branch as "interpreting" the Constitution. It was meant to be easily understood by any reasonably educated, literate person of that day. Get out a dictionary of that period and it is very clear what it means.
This post demonstrates the problem with reading versus understanding the constitution. Let me ask you, what is the primary duty of the Judicial Branch?
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 08:24 AM.

© 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