Judge Scalia RIP

[jamil]

If the Constitution must continue to mean what it meant the day its ink dried, then how does one resolve the conflict when an Amendment changes what the Constitution means?

Rather than simply asking rhetorically, I'll propose an answer: that's what we have Congress and the courts for.

Oh. Does the constitution not mean what it says about how to amend it? C'mon man. You know this.

 

[Lowe0]

Oddly enough, it is the conservatives who want the law to treat everyone equally, and the progressives who keep insisting on creating special classes of people who get treated differently under the law.

That one side wants to extend inequal protection doesn't mean the other does not fall far short of extending equal protection.

 

[Lowe0]

Oh. Does the constitution not mean what it says about how to amend it? C'mon man. You know this.

Whose intent must those amendments reflect? If it's not the Founders, then the Constitution would no longer mean precisely what it did the day the ink dried, and would therefore not meet the standard I'm arguing against.

 

[jamil]

Whose intent must those amendments reflect? If it's not the Founders, then the Constitution would no longer mean precisely what it did the day the ink dried, and would therefore not meet the standard I'm arguing against.

Okay, maybe you're not intellectually dishonest. Maybe you really just have no ****ing clue what original intent is. However, I just find it hard to believe that you could actually believe the straw man you're trying so hard to build.

 

[chipbennett]

If the Constitution must continue to mean what it meant the day its ink dried, then how does one resolve the conflict when an Amendment changes what the Constitution means?

Rather than simply asking rhetorically, I'll propose an answer: that's what we have Congress and the courts for.

The Constitution is the Constitution: the original document and all amendments added since the original document. The Constitution defines an amendment process for a reason. When the Constitution is amended, there is no inherent conflict, because the Constitution remains the Constitution.

It is generally the courts and congress that screw it up, necessitating amendments to the constitution to clarify the will of the people.

 

[jamil]

]The Constitution is the Constitution: the original document and all amendments added since the original document. The Constitution defines an amendment process for a reason. When the Constitution is amended, there is no inherent conflict, because the Constitution remains the Constitution. [/B]

It is generally the courts and congress that screw it up, necessitating amendments to the constitution to clarify the will of the people.

He's just ****ing with you. He knows all that. He's just trying to say it says something it doesn't say to build that straw monster that is the opposite of rule of whim.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Okay, maybe you're not intellectually dishonest. Maybe you really just have no ****ing clue what original intent is. However, I just find it hard to believe that you could actually believe the straw man you're trying so hard to build.

Many people prefer the federal government's larger role in the states' business and the peoples' lives and livelihoods. They like "wise" people in robes or from other states telling people they don't like how to run their businesses, their farms, and their lives. They just like big, intrusive, overbearing, central governments. It's their right to like what they like. And slowly, over the decades, their wishes have largely come true.

 

[KLB]

Many people prefer the federal government's larger role in the states' business. They like "wise" people in robes or from other states telling people they don't like how to run their businesses, their farms, and their lives. They just like big, intrusive, overbearing, central governments. It's their right to like what they like. And slowly, over the decades, their wishes have largely come true.

You know, it feels like MOST people feel that way today. So many want the .gov to make people think and act the way they want them to.

 

[jamil]

Many people prefer the federal government's larger role in the states' business and the peoples' lives and livelihoods. They like "wise" people in robes or from other states telling people they don't like how to run their businesses, their farms, and their lives. They just like big, intrusive, overbearing, central governments. It's their right to like what they like. And slowly, over the decades, their wishes have largely come true.

I guess their wishes have come truer faster by the whim of people in robes. If they had to actually change the constitution to give government the power they want, well, that just takes too much time, and it's too difficult to do when you're not the only one with an opinion about stuff.

 

[Lowe0]

The Constitution is the Constitution: the original document and all amendments added since the original document. The Constitution defines an amendment process for a reason. When the Constitution is amended, there is no inherent conflict, because the Constitution remains the Constitution.

It is generally the courts and congress that screw it up, necessitating amendments to the constitution to clarify the will of the people.

Please. As I've already pointed out, the kind of laws I like are already supported by a Constitutional Amendment. Going back to the day the ink dried is just cherry-picking. If amendments carry the Founders' imprimatur, then so do modern laws and decisions based on those amendments.

 

[jamil]

Please. As I've already pointed out, the kind of laws I like are already supported by a Constitutional Amendment. Going back to the day the ink dried is just cherry-picking. If amendments carry the Founders' imprimatur, then so do modern laws and decisions based on those amendments.

You're still sticking with that? When the constitution is amended, the amendment becomes the intent. Because it, you know, amended the previous intent. So, regarding subsequent questions about amendments an originalist would seek the meaning intended for the amendment and not the original text that was amended. In other words, the meaning of the constitution doesn't evolve on whim of black robed ideologues. It means what it meant when it was written, and that meaning is revised when it is ammended by the processes prescribed.

But then I'm pretty sure you know that. Have you run out of straw yet?

 

[Lowe0]

You're still sticking with that? When the constitution is amended, the amendment becomes the intent. Because it, you know, amended the previous intent. So, regarding subsequent questions about amendments an originalist would seek the meaning intended for the amendment and not the original text that was amended. In other words, the meaning of the constitution doesn't evolve on whim of black robed ideologues. It means what it meant when it was written, and that meaning is revised when it is ammended by the processes prescribed.

But then I'm pretty sure you know that. Have you run out of straw yet?

Except that, as I've already pointed out, the Constitution was on the side of Obergefell (as the most recent of the "judicial activism" cases, let's use that for a moment). Going back to a Constitution that doesn't support the equal application of marriage law would require ignoring the 14th Amendment. And that's my point: it's not original intent that GFGT wants, it's original intent of a subset of the Constitution convenient for his faction.

 

[chipbennett]

Except that, as I've already pointed out, the Constitution was on the side of Obergefell (as the most recent of the "judicial activism" cases, let's use that for a moment). Going back to a Constitution that doesn't support the equal application of marriage law would require ignoring the 14th Amendment. And that's my point: it's not original intent that GFGT wants, it's original intent of a subset of the Constitution convenient for his faction.

What part of the constitution enumerates the authority for the federal government to involve itself in State marriage laws? For that matter: what part of the constitution enumerates authority for the federal government to involve itself in marriage, period?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Except that, as I've already pointed out, the Constitution was on the side of Obergefell (as the most recent of the "judicial activism" cases, let's use that for a moment). Going back to a Constitution that doesn't support the equal application of marriage law would require ignoring the 14th Amendment. And that's my point: it's not original intent that GFGT wants, it's original intent of a subset of the Constitution convenient for his faction.

But it didn't support what your faction supports. According to a slim majority of 9 people in robes, they invented rationale for saying it did but you and your faction got the result you hoped for so, you win.

 

[KLB]

What part of the constitution enumerates the authority for the federal government to involve itself in State marriage laws? For that matter: what part of the constitution enumerates authority for the federal government to involve itself in marriage, period?

Don't they pretty much cover everything with either Interstate Commerce or their power to Tax? They pretty much think there is no limit to what they can control with one or the other.

 

[Lowe0]

What part of the constitution enumerates the authority for the federal government to involve itself in State marriage laws? For that matter: what part of the constitution enumerates authority for the federal government to involve itself in marriage, period?

The 14th: equal protection of the law. If a legal definition of marriage discriminates against a subset of couples, then it's not applied equally.

 

[Kutnupe14]

He has tried very hard to undermine the 2A. He has called Republicans terrorists. I'm not sure what's so hard to pinpoint here.

Simple question. Since he has been president, has Obama sign more legislation that's pro-gun, or anti-gun? And if you say anti-gun please cite.

 

[T.Lex]

Simple question. Since he has been president, has Obama sign more legislation that's pro-gun, or anti-gun? And if you say anti-gun please cite.

Trick question, eh?

He's floated many a trial-balloon but could find no one in Congress willing to bring gun control to a vote.

 

[jamil]

Except that, as I've already pointed out, the Constitution was on the side of Obergefell (as the most recent of the "judicial activism" cases, let's use that for a moment). Going back to a Constitution that doesn't support the equal application of marriage law would require ignoring the 14th Amendment. And that's my point: it's not original intent that GFGT wants, it's original intent of a subset of the Constitution convenient for his faction.

But that's not what you said. You said an interpretation based on original intent would say that women can't vote. It's so absurd that I first thought you were being sarcastic. And then you made it clear it wasn't sarcasm. You know it's untrue.

As far as Obergefell, it is still an issue of original intent. Did the law at the time mean to include any new definitions for equal protection? If society progresses on towards it's logical infinitum will equal protection apply to any human regardless of age or sex marrying any other human? The court stopped short of that and decided the case that only gays are to be added to protected classes. So for the next challenge to what marriage is, which new class not imagined now shall be added? I think it's better to change the constitution to what society wants rather than "evolve" it.

 

[jamil]

Simple question. Since he has been president, has Obama sign more legislation that's pro-gun, or anti-gun? And if you say anti-gun please cite.

So, you ignore the vigorous attempts to get legislation enacted from an opposite party as proof that he's not anti-gun? He said himself that his biggest disappointment was losing the gun control battle with congress. Simple question. Are you serious?