Constitutional terms, do they have meaning, do they have weight?

[Rich2018]

That is not necessarily an issue of interpretation, as a willingness of ideologues to ignore it when inconvenient.

Either way, it shows that the Constitution is not well written.

Not for the 21st century.

 

[Rich2018]

Some of them are quite focused. Unfortunately on their ideology, not on the words, meaning or intent of our founding document. That is true of many here, too. "General Welfare" has equal billing with "national defense" but some prefer to ignore that. Or "establishing religion". That seems to get short shift in some quarters, and half of the denizens if the Court.

The phrase "General Welfare" is meaningless.

As is limited government or limited defense.

Separation of church and state is clear though - no taxpayers money should ever be spend on religion or a religious building.

 

[danielpalos]

Either way, it shows that the Constitution is not well written.

Not for the 21st century.

There is nothing ambiguous about our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. Our founding fathers used object orientation before the Information Age gave us the technical term.

 

[danielpalos]

The phrase "General Welfare" is meaningless.

As is limited government or limited defense.

Separation of church and state is clear though - no taxpayers money should ever be spend on religion or a religious building.

Our welfare clause is General not Common and must cover any given contingency.

 

[NotreDame]

No, 5:4 decisions don't negate the meaning that the framers had in mind, it just shows that their meaning wasn't expressed very well.

If the Constitution was well expressed (in 21st century terms) it would have 5:4 Supreme Courts decisions.

No, 5:4 decisions don't negate the meaning that the framers had in mind, it just shows that their meaning wasn't expressed very well.

That conclusion, “it shows their meaning wasn’t expressed very well” doesn’t follow. It ignores the reality that some justices, including some appellate jurists, especially the liberal justices, ascribe to Living Constitutionalism. For this group, the original meaning isn’t determinative but a more modern meaning conceived in the mind of the jurist controls. Hence, 5-4 decisions between liberal and conservative jurists, but it isn’t reflective of the meaning as poorly expressed as it is one side doesn’t care about the 200 plus year old meaning.

If the Constitution was well expressed (in 21st century terms) it would have 5:4 Supreme Courts decisions

Speculative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NotreDame]

The phrase "General Welfare" is meaningless.

To the contrary, there is sufficient evidence from the framing era to reasonably understand the meaning of the phrase. Hamilton was a leading proponent for using the phrase to justify passage of specific legislation he favored while serving in the Washington Administration.

There was also a dispute with Hamilton on one side and Jefferson/Madison on the other, as to whether the General Welfare Clause was a grant of power for Congress to exercise. A debate that found its way into the U.S. Supreme Court decision of U.S. v Butler.

So, there is a good supply of historical evidence for one to reasonably deduce a meaning of the General Welfare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NotreDame]

Either way, it shows that the Constitution is not well written.

Not for the 21st century.

Maybe. Maybe not. If written today, the document plausibly could be substantially the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thoreau72]

Rather than follow the thread down irrelevant rabbit holes, I'll engage the original question: yes they have meaning. Some have different meanings than would appear at first glance (archaic language, and all that), but many of us spent our lives in service to those meanings, like "due process of law", and "provide for the common defense and general welfare." Some prefer to elide certain clauses that the find "inconvenient" to their political posture, like "well regulated militia", but those have meaning, too.

At the same time, all rights protected but the Constitution have limitations. That is the nature of the balancing acts contained within the document. It is up to all of us to give those words effect by defending them, and understanding them, and advocating for them. That's our role as citizens.

Are we citizens or consumers? It seems many see their role in society to be that of consumers. Citizens, and all that requires, not so much.

All rights protected by USC have limitations? I guess that means I cannot shout "fire" in a theater full of people, but some lawyer or other would say I might have an obligation to shout fire if the theater is on fire?

What limitations are there to the rights enumerated in the various amendments of the BOR, especially the Ninth?

 

[danielpalos]

To the contrary, there is sufficient evidence from the framing era to reasonably understand the meaning of the phrase. Hamilton was a leading proponent for using the phrase to justify passage of specific legislation he favored while serving in the Washington Administration.

There was also a dispute with Hamilton on one side and Jefferson/Madison on the other, as to whether the General Welfare Clause was a grant of power for Congress to exercise. A debate that found its way into the U.S. Supreme Court decision of U.S. v Butler.

So, there is a good supply of historical evidence for one to reasonably deduce a meaning of the General Welfare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, it cannot and must not mean or be equivalent to, the general badfare nor the general warfare.

 

[NWRatCon]

Are we citizens or consumers? It seems many see their role in society to be that of consumers. Citizens, and all that requires, not so much.

All rights protected by USC have limitations? I guess that means I cannot shout "fire" in a theater full of people, but some lawyer or other would say I might have an obligation to shout fire if the theater is on fire?

What limitations are there to the rights enumerated in the various amendments of the BOR, especially the Ninth?

I can provide a rational limitation to virtually every "right", enumerated or unenumerated, in the Constitution, and you could too. The Supreme Court has long permitted "time, place, and manner" restrictions on speech and assembly, for example. One cannot "peaceably assemble" in the middle of a murder trial, or on public thoroughfares without a permit. As you noted, one cannot yell fire in a theater just to get attention, or "bear" a firearm in a judge's chambers. A warrant based upon probable cause will obviate privacy of papers and things, and "exigent circumstances" may allow an officer entry to, for example, save someone in imminent peril. So it is with travel, abortion, and liberty. It's all about balancing, and the framers intended it that way. It's not a "suicide pact" and it's not a pass for every conceivable misdeed.

 

[Rich2018]

There is nothing ambiguous about our federal Constitution...

So how do you explain 5/:4 Supreme Court rulings
If the Constitution was unambiguous, all SC rulings would be unanimous.

Our welfare clause is General not Common and must cover any given contingency.

A totally meaningless statement that not even you understand

If you do, please give an example of what a "common" welfare policy would be and what a "general" policy would be.

 

[Rich2018]

That conclusion, “it shows their meaning wasn’t expressed very well” doesn’t follow. It ignores the reality that some justices, including some appellate jurists, especially the liberal justices, ascribe to Living Constitutionalism. For this group, the original meaning isn’t determinative but a more modern meaning conceived in the mind of the jurist controls. Hence, 5-4 decisions between liberal and conservative jurists, but it isn’t reflective of the meaning as poorly expressed as it is one side doesn’t care about the 200 plus year old meaning.

Sorry that's just double-talk
A well written Constitution for the 21st century would have no wiggle-room to allow the Supreme Court (supposedly experts in the Constitution) to deliver a 5:4 ruling

To the contrary, there is sufficient evidence from the framing era to reasonably understand the meaning of the phrase. Hamilton was a leading proponent for using the phrase to justify passage of specific legislation he favored while serving in the Washington Administration.

So, there is a good supply of historical evidence for one to reasonably deduce a meaning of the General Welfare.

OK, what would be an example of a "general" welfare policy; and what would be an example of a "common" welfare policy ?

Speculative.


Maybe. Maybe not. If written today, the document plausibly could be substantially the same.

No, if the Constitution was a well written law, it would have 5:4 Supreme Courts decisions as they'd be no ambiguity.

 

[NotreDame]

Sorry that's just double-talk





OK, what would be an example of a "general" welfare policy; and what would be an example of a "common" welfare policy ?




No, if the Constitution was a well written law, it would have 5:4 Supreme Courts decisions as they'd be no ambiguity.

Sorry that's just double-talk

No, the fact you’ve committed a nonsequitur, and are called out for it, isn’t double talk. Alleging double talk does nothing to address your nonsequitur. Such a left field response is consistent with someone who lacks an adequate, substantive reply.

A well written Constitution for the 21st century would have no wiggle-room to allow the Supreme Court (supposedly experts in the Constitution) to deliver a 5:4 ruling

Not only is this speculative, such a remark isn’t based in reality. Your view ignores the long known and established phenomenon of justices applying whatever meaning they want to the constitution regardless of the original meaning, producing some 5-4 decisions between those adhering to original meaning and those who are not. 5-4 decisions even when original meaning is followed can occur as the meaning is agreed upon but what outcome that produces on the facts isn’t agreed upon. So, you’d still have 5-4 rulings as your view rests upon the laughable notion the justices will adhere to the original meaning, they haven’t, and there is no reason to think they wouldn’t continue with what has always been done, at times ignore the meaning.

No, if the Constitution was a well written law, it would have 5:4 Supreme Courts decisions as they'd be no ambiguity

Except your asinine notion they wouldn’t depart from the unambiguous meaning is problematic. What is more troublesome is ostensibly you cannot grasp the fact the meaning, although ambiguous, has been ignored before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[danielpalos]

So how do you explain 5/:4 Supreme Court rulings
If the Constitution was unambiguous, all SC rulings would be unanimous.




A totally meaningless statement that not even you understand

If you do, please give an example of what a "common" welfare policy would be and what a "general" policy would be.

Political partisanship? There is no Thing ambiguous about our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land in any given conflict of laws.

Our welfare clause is General and must provide for any given contingency. Our legislators are responsible for general policies.

The Common welfare must solve for local dilemmas on a case by case basis.

Our legislators can legislate general welfare policies; whereas the judiciary would be ruling on actual dilemmas on a case by case basis,

Posse comitatus is a power based on the common defense under the common law.

 

[Evilroddy]

What do certain terms used in the Constitution mean, and do they have any weight in today's jurisprudence?

For example: Congress shall make no law...

...Shall not be violated...

No person shall be held to answer

In all criminal prosecutions the right of trial by jury shall be preserved

Excessive bail shall not be required

Do any of these terms carry any weight in today's legal proceedings?

Thoreau72:

As general legal principles and as foundational ideas of procedural law, yes these ideas and the terms to describe them still carry great weight under US law. Are they too often ignored, circumvented or abused by either a politically agenda-driven legal system or a corrupt legal system here or there in Ameica? Regretably yes to that too.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[American]

It doesn't, but it has precedent.

We've had enough past presidents and presidential candidates to establish a precedent...which is not legally binding of course, but it appears to have enough merit on its own that most Americans have come to expect it. Which means that Trump is under no legal obligation to do so...unless the courts tell him to if he is suspected of wrongdoing in that instance.

Having said that...

I find it humorous that the right did away with the precedent of releasing taxes for Trump to protect....then demanding that precedent be followed during the impeachment phase.

Since when is what a person makes for a living, a prerequisite for the Presidency?

 

[NWRatCon]

Since when is what a person makes for a living, a prerequisite for the Presidency?

Well, would it be pertinent to the qualifications if someone made their money as a drug kingpin, gambling "entrepreneur", paid assassin or pimp? If all of their "gains" are ill-gotten and untaxed?

[I do find it amusing that someone uses the name "American", then promotes Russian propaganda in their sig line.]

 

[American]

Well, would it be pertinent to the qualifications if someone made their money as a drug kingpin, gambling "entrepreneur", paid assassin or pimp? If all of their "gains" are ill-gotten and untaxed?

[I do find it amusing that someone uses the name "American", then promotes Russian propaganda in their sig line.]

Do you look at your state representatives taxes? How about your state assembly members? I think this is only about getting Trump. You really don't care otherwise. You know on the other note, I don't care what you find amusing. If you don't like Frederick Douglass and think his words are Russian propaganda, well I don't know what to think about you.

 

[NWRatCon]

As usual, you completely miss the point to promote partisan propaganda. I expected no less, but I'd hoped for more. Silly me.

Frederick Douglass was a real American. Not so sure about you.

 

[Rich2018]

Political partisanship? There is no Thing ambiguous about our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land in any given conflict of laws.

If the US Constitution wasn't ambiguous, how do you explain 5:4 Supreme Court decisions (from supposedly constitutional experts) ?

Our welfare clause is General and must provide for any given contingency. Our legislators are responsible for general policies.

A totally meaningless statement that you do not understand

Give an example of what a "common" welfare policy would be and what a "general" policy would be.

Our legislators can legislate general welfare policies; whereas the judiciary would be ruling on actual dilemmas on a case by case basis

Meaningless drivel

Show you understand, give an example of what a "common" welfare policy would be and what a "general" policy would be. Otherwise shut up about common and general clauses

Posse comitatus is a power based on the common defense under the common law.

More meaningless drivel

See above about giving examples, which no-one expects you to be able to do.

You just parrot the same drivel, that you don't understand.

 

[danielpalos]

If the US Constitution wasn't ambiguous, how do you explain 5:4 Supreme Court decisions (from supposedly constitutional experts) ?




A totally meaningless statement that you do not understand

Give an example of what a "common" welfare policy would be and what a "general" policy would be.




Meaningless drivel

Show you understand, give an example of what a "common" welfare policy would be and what a "general" policy would be. Otherwise shut up about common and general clauses




More meaningless drivel

See above about giving examples, which no-one expects you to be able to do.

You just parrot the same drivel, that you don't understand.

Political partisanship must explain it.

and, our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency as long as it promotes the general welfare.

 

[Rich2018]

...our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency as long as it promotes the general welfare.

But as discussed, you don't know what that means

You can't give an example of a policy the would be "general" or a policy that would be "common"


So why do you keep parroting things you have no understanding of ?

 

[danielpalos]

But as discussed, you don't know what that means

You can't give an example of a policy the would be "general" or a policy that would be "common"


So why do you keep parroting things you have no understanding of ?

Solving simple poverty through uniformity of application of the law should be legislated by our legislators as a Cause for implementing any such general public policy.

The Common law is available via a separate but co-equal branch of Government, in this case.

 

[Rich2018]

Solving simple poverty through uniformity of application of the law should be legislated by our legislators as a Cause for implementing any such general public policy.

The Common law is available via a separate but co-equal branch of Government, in this case.

So what would be an example of a "common" policy to solve simple poverty ?
What would be an example of a "general" policy to solve simple poverty ?

 

[danielpalos]

So what would be an example of a "common" policy to solve simple poverty ?
What would be an example of a "general" policy to solve simple poverty ?

A class action via the common law would fulfil that requirement.

Otherwise, it could be resolved generally via a simple executive order.