Thread Options 
|
#495362 - 02/09/06 09:30 PM
Re: The Constitution
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Yes, the government has a moral obligation to recognize those rights. But our government is not simply comprised of nine robed demigods on Mount Olympus. We the people should arrive at a mutual understanding of what those rights are, and our elected representatives should act to protect those rights by law.
but what about the understanding of the framers? this seems to be brought up an awful lot by your ilk. i just can't get over how much you hate SCOTUS. they are not evil people. you act like SCOTUS has their thumbs in every pie. they decide disputes not "make law". human decisions are not 10011010110111 like some machine.
stop kidding yourself with "mutual". was that a joke? have you seen the threads here?!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#495364 - 02/09/06 09:54 PM
Re: The Constitution
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Ron, you're being silly. I don't hate anyone. I strongly disagree with much of what they do, but I don't recall ever posting anything hateful about them. The "Mount Olympus" comment was more a joke about your worshipful reverence towards those (liberals) on the court that you view as infallible.
Keep telling yourself that they've never made law. Those of us with our eyes open will likely ignore you, but that's ok.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#495366 - 02/09/06 09:57 PM
Re: The Constitution
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
And I'm not kidding about "mutual". There are certainly things that two-thirds of us can agree about regarding what the federal government should concern itself in - national defense, clean air and water regulation, coining money. If there are other things regarding which such a consensus cannot be formed, perhaps those things are better addressed at a state level, or not at all.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#495367 - 02/09/06 09:58 PM
Re: The Constitution
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
oh and one more thing...
the section you bolded leads me to believe that this needs to be defined by somebody. guess SCOTUS is not to be trusted. let's get delay and santorum in there. they are good christians who know what God has endowed upon us.
Ron Cuba - you're being inflammatory for no good reason. In our country, you may believe that rights are endowed by our Creator (as stated in the Declaration), while I may believe that rights are endowed by Zuba, the ancestral Swedish innertube who lived here before we did. But the constitution is our agreement that wherever they came from, these particular rights are the ones the federal government will recognize and protect. (It's also the "charter" that governs how our government is structured and operates.)
well i appologize for any offense but j was being obtuse and i wanted him to get to his point.
my whole point with this thread was that interpretation is not black and white. especially with the constitution. statutes lend themselves to particularity, the constitution does not. there are areas where the scope is broad and things do overlap.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#495368 - 02/09/06 10:04 PM
Re: The Constitution
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
And I'm not kidding about "mutual". There are certainly things that two-thirds of us can agree about regarding what the federal government should concern itself in - national defense, clean air and water regulation, coining money. If there are other things regarding which such a consensus cannot be formed, perhaps those things are better addressed at a state level, or not at all.
that's not what mutual means to me, j.
i am not a worshiper of the liberals on the court. i am more of a worshiper of the court in general.
sorry but i cannot agree with you two about literalism. just can't. i think there is so much more to the equation than just that. moreover, we are not in an era where 2/3s will ever apply unless it is an amendment that "the sky will hereafter be recognized as being blue". the system is not perfect but the people on the court are trying their best to do what is right by the constitution. if there is no leeway for interpretation then why have the court anyway?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#495370 - 02/09/06 10:11 PM
Re: The Constitution
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
that's not what mutual means to me, j... we are not in an era where 2/3s will ever apply unless it is an amendment that "the sky will hereafter be recognized as being blue".
So your argument is that because consensus is too difficult, we should cede power to the Supreme Court?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#495371 - 02/09/06 10:12 PM
Re: The Constitution
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
my whole point with this thread was that interpretation is not black and white. especially with the constitution. statutes lend themselves to particularity, the constitution does not. there are areas where the scope is broad and things do overlap.
No quarrel with that; I don't think the Constitution is black and white. There is certainly room for interpretation. I just think there should be reasonable boundaries. If you tell me you're not happy, there are many ways I can interpret that. But it would not be reasonable for me to interpret that you mean you're "joyful," because joy is different than happiness and I prefer a positive outcome.
The article that Random linked would seem to indicate that Breyer doesn't feel particularly "bound" by the text of the Constitution. I suspect that he's probably more "bound" than what the article says, but still. . .
BTW, I would state that many statutes also are not black and white either.
i can't disagree with that, mcbain.
i don't think that the court is finding the "opposite" to the meaning of the text like you fellas are leading on. i also don't think you fellas grasp the nature of constitutions either. unless the eu constitution is your paradigm for constitutional perfection.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#495373 - 02/09/06 10:18 PM
Re: The Constitution
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
that's not what mutual means to me, j... we are not in an era where 2/3s will ever apply unless it is an amendment that "the sky will hereafter be recognized as being blue".
So your argument is that because consensus is too difficult, we should cede power to the Supreme Court?
not exactly. but i don't think power has been "ceded" to SCOTUS in the first place.
as far as the consensus (i am mixing constitutional amendment consensus and legislative consensus here) idea goes, i believe that the court honestly tries to respect every piece of legislation written. the system is not perfect, but without it, we would be worse off. my point about the probability of amendments in this era of partisanship is not far from the truth; justice does not wait lex reprobat moram
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#495374 - 02/09/06 10:21 PM
Re: The Constitution
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
i also don't think you fellas grasp the nature of constitutions either.
Guess I better go study up. Gee whiz, thanks perfesser! 
sorry. i wasn't trying to insult at all. i meant that your view of the construct of the constitution differs from what many legal scholars believe. you know i respect the heck out of you guys (well more you than jokerman  )
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#495375 - 02/09/06 10:34 PM
Re: The Constitution
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
not exactly. but i don't think power has been "ceded" to SCOTUS in the first place.
Good point, there certainly has been a power grab by the Court on at least as many occassions, but it has been ceded, as well. For instance, a President's signing of a bill that he believes to be unconstitutional, on the hope that the Court will strike it down; intentionally vague statutes that Congress does not have to work so hard to defend; statements from a minority leader in Congress that it is inappropriate for members to disagree with an eminent domain ruling because it is "almost as if God has spoken"...these aren't even hard ones to think of, Ron.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#495377 - 02/10/06 03:29 AM
Re: The Constitution
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
In response to: Quote:
Nonsense! Federal constitutional rights can not be "found" in any of those places. They can only come from within the US Constitution. They sinply don't have to be enumerated.
You said:
Quote:
You seem to think that the only source of our rights is the US Constitution.
No, I very specifically and deliberately said federal constitutional rights.
Quote:
You're right in your first premise - federal constitutional rights can only be found in the constitution. And I will go so far as to say that there are certain constitutional rights that are not explictly enumerated that are nonetheless found within the text of the constitution - for example the right of free association.
Or, as the Supreme Court and I believe, the right to privacy.
Of course there are rights conferred by state constitutions or other legislation, but they have nothing to do with the Ninth Amendment. That is an amendment to the US Constitution and applies only to federal constitutional rights. Your state constitution protects your state rights.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#495378 - 02/10/06 04:34 PM
Re: The Constitution
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,239
|
Morning, Ron! You said: Quote:
Of course there are rights conferred by state constitutions or other legislation, but they have nothing to do with the Ninth Amendment. That is an amendment to the US Constitution and applies only to federal constitutional rights. Your state constitution protects your state rights.
in response to which I say:
You dope! The whole point of the 9th amendment is to protect rights that aren't in the Constitution against the idea that they don't exist because they're not enumerated in the Constitition. The Constitution already protects those rights that are enumerated it it - if that's what the 9th amendment were about, we wouldn't need it.
So you're absolutely, unequivocally, enormously, and completely wrong in saying the 9th Amendment only applies to federal constitutional rights!
Don't believe me? Believe Justice Stevens:
Quote:
The absence of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution proposed by the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a major objection to the Convention's proposal. See, e. g., 12 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 438 (Boyd ed. 1955). In defense of the Convention's plan Alexander Hamilton argued that the enumeration of certain rights was not only unnecessary,
given that such rights had not been surrendered by the people in their grant of limited powers to the Federal Government, but "would even be dangerous" on the ground that enumerating certain rights could provide a "plausible pretense" for the Government to claim powers not granted in
derogation of the people's rights. The Federalist No. 84, pp. 573, 574 (Ford ed. 1898) (A. Hamilton). The latter argument troubled the First Congress during deliberations on the Bill of Rights, and its solution became the Ninth Amendment. See 1 Annals of Congress 439 (1789) (remarks of Rep. Madison).
The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." To the extent that the Bill of Rights is applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment, the principle embodied in the Ninth Amendment is applicable as well. The Ninth Amendment, it has been said, states but a truism. But that truism goes to the very core of the constitutional relationship between the individual and governmental authority, and, indeed, between sovereigns exercising authority over the individual.
In my view, the court below lost sight of this truism, and permitted the enumeration of certain rights in the Fourth Amendment to disparage the rights retained by the people of Page 738 Massachusetts under Art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. It is of course not my role to state what rights Art. 14 confers upon the people of Massachusetts; under our system of federalism, only Massachusetts can do that. The state court refused to perform that function, however, and instead strained to rest its judgment on federal constitutional grounds.
Massachussetts v. Upton 466 U.S. 727, 737, 738 (1984).
_________________________
Nobody's perfect, not even a perfect stranger.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#495379 - 02/10/06 04:45 PM
Re: The Constitution
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Morning, Ron!
You said:
Quote:
Of course there are rights conferred by state constitutions or other legislation, but they have nothing to do with the Ninth Amendment. That is an amendment to the US Constitution and applies only to federal constitutional rights. Your state constitution protects your state rights.
in response to which I say:
You dope! The whole point of the 9th amendment is to protect rights that aren't in the Constitution against the idea that they don't exist because they're not enumerated in the Constitition. The Constitution already protects those rights that are enumerated it it - if that's what the 9th amendment were about, we wouldn't need it.
So you're absolutely, unequivocally, enormously, and completely wrong in saying the 9th Amendment only applies to federal constitutional rights!
Don't believe me? Believe Justice Stevens:
Quote:
The absence of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution proposed by the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a major objection to the Convention's proposal. See, e. g., 12 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 438 (Boyd ed. 1955). In defense of the Convention's plan Alexander Hamilton argued that the enumeration of certain rights was not only unnecessary,
given that such rights had not been surrendered by the people in their grant of limited powers to the Federal Government, but "would even be dangerous" on the ground that enumerating certain rights could provide a "plausible pretense" for the Government to claim powers not granted in
derogation of the people's rights. The Federalist No. 84, pp. 573, 574 (Ford ed. 1898) (A. Hamilton). The latter argument troubled the First Congress during deliberations on the Bill of Rights, and its solution became the Ninth Amendment. See 1 Annals of Congress 439 (1789) (remarks of Rep. Madison).
The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." To the extent that the Bill of Rights is applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment, the principle embodied in the Ninth Amendment is applicable as well. The Ninth Amendment, it has been said, states but a truism. But that truism goes to the very core of the constitutional relationship between the individual and governmental authority, and, indeed, between sovereigns exercising authority over the individual.
In my view, the court below lost sight of this truism, and permitted the enumeration of certain rights in the Fourth Amendment to disparage the rights retained by the people of Page 738 Massachusetts under Art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. It is of course not my role to state what rights Art. 14 confers upon the people of Massachusetts; under our system of federalism, only Massachusetts can do that. The state court refused to perform that function, however, and instead strained to rest its judgment on federal constitutional grounds.
Massachussetts v. Upton 466 U.S. 727, 737, 738 (1984).
no i didn't. it was another anon. i said my piece regarding constitutional interpretation already. my only comments about the 9th and 10th was that they were the forgotten children of the constitution. have fun with the other anon that won't say who they are. sorry rainier.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#495380 - 02/10/06 04:48 PM
Re: The Constitution
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,239
|
Ooops, I stand corrected!
In that case, please replace "Morning Ron!" with "Morning anon who's not Ron!" in my post.
The point remains the same.
_________________________
Nobody's perfect, not even a perfect stranger.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#495381 - 02/10/06 05:01 PM
Re: The Constitution
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Ooops, I stand corrected!
In that case, please replace "Morning Ron!" with "Morning anon who's not Ron!" in my post.
The point remains the same.
in general, i hope you mean the "Morning Ron" thing, too.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#495382 - 02/10/06 05:06 PM
Re: The Constitution
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,239
|
Of course. I cain't quit you Ron! all right, simmer down everyone. it's just a joke!
_________________________
Nobody's perfect, not even a perfect stranger.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#495383 - 02/10/06 05:07 PM
Re: The Constitution
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Of course.
I cain't quit you Ron!
nobody can, wolfcastle. nobody can.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#495384 - 02/10/06 05:22 PM
Re: The Constitution
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Take it for whatever you want. I never said we should do away with judges. I do say that we should be governed by law, not men.
Then one needs to ask who makes the law. The answer is man. So logically we are governed by man.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#495386 - 02/10/06 07:01 PM
Re: The Constitution
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Your assumption that my post was written by Ron was indeed incorrect.
It is an interesting theory that the Ninth Amendment may be applicable to the states by incorporation as Justice Stevens believes. I have to admit that I didn't consider this because the Ninth Amendment relates to constitutional construction rather than directly conferring rights (although I am puzzled that you thought it was appropriate to engage in name-calling over it). I'm not sure whether it would be one of the provisions incorporated by the 14th Amendment or not.
My point was directed towards the original intent of the Ninth Amendment - that the enumeration of federal constitutional rights was not intended to be exhaustive. The argument that "it isn't a right because those words don't appear in the Constitution" is not an argument that invalidates either freedom of association or the right to privacy. Those rights, in my view, are fairly drawn from the express provisions in the US Constitution.
- the non-Ron anon
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Thread
Index