The Purpose Of The Bill Of Rights

[RabidAlpaca]

Amendments aren't "living constitution" bull****. "Living constitution" bull**** is what's pushed to get around the amendment process.

Yes they are. They can be new things added to the constitution or they can be changes to previously established things. There is no constitutional or legal block to a future amendment changing one of the first 10 amendments. You can say you hope it never is changed, but to pretend it can't be done is idiotic and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and our government.

You people are so hysterical arguing against some made up liberal strawman you can't address much less refute what I'm actually saying.

 

[MovingPictures]

Yes they are. They can be new things added to the constitution or they can be changes to previously established things. There is no constitutional or legal block to a future amendment changing one of the first 10 amendments. You can say you hope it never is changed, but to pretend it can't be done is idiotic and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and our government.

You people are so hysterical arguing against some made up liberal strawman you can't address much less refute what I'm actually saying.

When conservative whine about "judicial activism" they're simply projected their own tactics on to their opposition - as usual.

The original draft of the Constitution left open many doors for interpretation, which is exactly why the framers desired a high court to decide matters not explicitly covered in the document itself. They could not envision every possible behavior, demographic, or scenario where people might practice their liberties, so they left it up to the SCOTUS to handle those cases.

Further, there is nothing in the constitution that says states are to decide the legality of any liberty not mentioned the Bill of Rights, and that their law will trump any federally law that might be written.

 

[ttwtt78640]

When conservative whine about "judicial activism" they're simply projected their own tactics on to their opposition - as usual.

The original draft of the Constitution left open many doors for interpretation, which is exactly why the framers desired a high court to decide matters not explicitly covered in the document itself. They could not envision every possible behavior, demographic, or scenario where people might practice their liberties, so they left it up to the SCOTUS to handle those cases.

Further, there is nothing in the constitution that says states are to decide the legality of any liberty not mentioned the Bill of Rights, and that their law will trump any federally law that might be written.

Is that your interpretation of the 10A?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Master PO]

Yes they are. They can be new things added to the constitution or they can be changes to previously established things. There is no constitutional or legal block to a future amendment changing one of the first 10 amendments. You can say you hope it never is changed, but to pretend it can't be done is idiotic and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and our government.

You people are so hysterical arguing against some made up liberal strawman you can't address much less refute what I'm actually saying.

well its clear that people on the left are currently in a state of hysteria over government and the people in charge

no ones saying that "Living constitution" non sense is the amendment process, what it is, is the reinterpretation of constitutional law by judges in saying the federal government has powers, where no such power is delegated to the federal government in the constitution.

 

[Tennyson]

When conservative whine about "judicial activism" they're simply projected their own tactics on to their opposition - as usual.

The original draft of the Constitution left open many doors for interpretation, which is exactly why the framers desired a high court to decide matters not explicitly covered in the document itself. They could not envision every possible behavior, demographic, or scenario where people might practice their liberties, so they left it up to the SCOTUS to handle those cases.

Further, there is nothing in the constitution that says states are to decide the legality of any liberty not mentioned the Bill of Rights, and that their law will trump any federally law that might be written.

There is nothing in Article III giving the Supreme Court power to interpret the Constitution and that is a concept that did not exist in 1787. Moreover, there was no Article III federal question jurisdiction either.

 

[MovingPictures]

Is that your interpretation of the 10A?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In this case "the people" means the voters, whether they be for the local or federal governments.

If the people elect a Congress that passes a law that is contrary to those of a state, the federal law will trump the state law, end of story.

 

[Master PO]

There is nothing in Article III giving the Supreme Court power to interpret the Constitution and that is a concept that did not exist in 1787. Moreover, there was no Article III federal question jurisdiction either.

correct, james madison makes the point that the states are the final authority.

for the first 10 years of the USSC they did very little

 

[MovingPictures]

There is nothing in Article III giving the Supreme Court power to interpret the Constitution and that is a concept that did not exist in 1787. Moreover, there was no Article III federal question jurisdiction either.

Federalist papers -78
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents

There, is this argument over now?

 

[Master PO]

In this case "the people" means the voters, whether they be for the local or federal governments.

If the people elect a Congress that passes a law that is contrary to those of a state, the federal law will trump the state law, end of story.

you need to understand the 10th

the 10th means : if a power is not delegated to the federal government by the constitution, it REMAINS a state power

 

[MovingPictures]

correct, james madison makes the point that the states are the final authority.

for the first 10 years of the USSC they did very little

There is nothing in the Constitution whatsoever that implies state law trumps federal law.

In fact, it is very clear in passages such as the fourteenth amendment that matters such as "equal protection" are not for states to decide.

 

[ttwtt78640]

In this case "the people" means the voters, whether they be for the local or federal governments.

If the people elect a Congress that passes a law that is contrary to those of a state, the federal law will trump the state law, end of story.

If, and only if, that law is consistent with an existing (enumerated?) constitutional federal power. Passing a new federal law does not 'auto-amend' the US constitution - which is essentially the 'living document' idea.

 

[MovingPictures]

you need to understand the 10th

the 10th means : if a power is not delegated to the federal government by the constitution, it REMAINS a state power

Ever hear of the 'Supremacy Clause'? :lol:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Geez, you guys think you sound like experts, but its pretty clear you actually no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Master PO]

There is nothing in the Constitution whatsoever that implies state law trumps federal law.

In fact, it is very clear in passages such as the fourteenth amendment that matters such as "equal protection" are not for states to decide.

that is not what i said.


again i said.......that the 10th means if a power in not delegated to the federal government by the constitution, then the power remains a state power.

example: there is no power delegated to the federal government concerning "HOUSING", so for HUD to exist is unconstitutional

 

[MovingPictures]

If, and only if, that law is consistent with an existing (enumerated?) constitutional federal power. Passing a new federal law does not 'auto-amend' the US constitution - which is essentially the 'living document' idea.

Unless a law passed by Congress is found by SCOTUS to be itself unconstitutional, it is the supreme law of the land. If the court rules against the federal government, then the constitution can be amended.

While we might not like it, states only have as much power on matters uncovered by the constitution as the SCOTUS and federal government give them. If every state law is allowed to trump federal law then pretty soon we don't have 'the fifty states' and we wind-up with 'the fifty countries', which is the framers made it clear that such a thing wouldn't be possible.

 

[Master PO]

Ever hear of the 'Supremacy Clause'? :lol:



Geez, you guys think you sound like experts, but its pretty clear you actually no idea what you're talking about.

you are off track and are not following me.

the Supremacy Clause means the states cannot write laws which are in the realm of the federal government to write laws.

 

[Harshaw]

Yes they are. They can be new things added to the constitution or they can be changes to previously established things. There is no constitutional or legal block to a future amendment changing one of the first 10 amendments. You can say you hope it never is changed, but to pretend it can't be done is idiotic and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and our government.

You people are so hysterical arguing against some made up liberal strawman you can't address much less refute what I'm actually saying.

No.

"Living constitution" bull**** holds that the words of the Constitution should be "reinterpreted" with "the times," as in, we will read it however we need to read it to do what we want, no amendments necessary.

The amendment process is the actual prescribed means of changing the terms of the Constitution.

When Prohibition was enacted, people still thought an amendment was necessary to make alcohol illegal. THAT is strict construction.

Since the New Deal, they've decided that an expansive view of the Commerce Clause and the Elastic Clause was all that was necessary to proscribe intoxicating substances. The same was done for massive expansions of federal power in many other areas, such as civil rights, gun control, etc. THAT is "living constitution" theory.

(And YOU, my friend, should be lecturing NO ONE on being "hysterical" these days . . . )

 

[MovingPictures]

that is not what i said.


again i said.......that the 10th means if a power in not delegated to the federal government by the constitution, then the power remains a state power.

example: there is no power delegated to the federal government concerning "HOUSING", so for HUD to exist is unconstitutional

:lamo

If a state passes a law giving the federal government a new power, the federal government legally has that power, end of story.

Don't like it? Too bad. Make sure you elect Congressmen that will represent your states interest to prevent the bill from becoming law, so that the power remains a state power.

 

[Tennyson]

Federalist papers -78
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78


There, is this argument over now?

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.

Here is what it does not say, nor was its intent, as no Supreme Court opinions made an interpretation of the Constitution:

The interpretation of the Constitution is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.​

Federalist 78 is not Article III and was written by a man who had nothing to do with writing Article III.

The "laws" were limited to federal laws, not state laws unless a conflict with an Article I power.

Moreover, the First Congress rejected the first ten amendments to be under the purview of the federal judiciary.

 

[Master PO]

:lamo

If a state passes a law giving the federal government a new power, the federal government legally has that power, end of story.

Don't like it? Too bad. Make sure you elect Congressmen that will represent your states interest to prevent the bill from becoming law, so that the power remains a state power.

a state?

if an amendment is passed delegating the federal government a new power, then that is strict constitution and the way the founders intended.

but when the federal government creates a law in an area of power which is not delegated to the federal government by the constitution, ..that is unconstitutional

 

[Tennyson]

In this case "the people" means the voters, whether they be for the local or federal governments.

If the people elect a Congress that passes a law that is contrary to those of a state, the federal law will trump the state law, end of story.

That is not how Article VI works. For the supremacy clause to have effect, the law must be constitutional.

 

[Tennyson]

There is nothing in the Constitution whatsoever that implies state law trumps federal law.

In fact, it is very clear in passages such as the fourteenth amendment that matters such as "equal protection" are not for states to decide.

Yes there is: Article VI.

 

[Tennyson]

Ever hear of the 'Supremacy Clause'? :lol:



Geez, you guys think you sound like experts, but its pretty clear you actually no idea what you're talking about.

You did not highlight this part: "...and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;"

 

[MovingPictures]

That is not how Article VI works. For the supremacy clause to have effect, the law must be constitutional.

That is exactly what I said just one page ago, or you unable to represent peoples views fairly?

You're also skirting the issue, which is that federal law does indeed trump state law in the constitution, whether you like it or not.

 

[Harshaw]

Ever hear of the 'Supremacy Clause'? :lol:



Geez, you guys think you sound like experts, but its pretty clear you actually no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, the Supremacy Clause refers to that enacted through the powers properly granted to the federal government by the Constitution.

And even if you think the 10th Amendment conflicts with the Supremacy Clause, the 10th Amendment wins, being an amendment and all.

 

[Master PO]

The Federalist Papers Summary No 78: Hamilton
May 28, 1788​

This paper begins an examination of the judiciary department of the proposed government. ..........................


He then goes on to the second important point. Talking about a limited constitution that gives only enumerated powers to the federal government he states “Limitation of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of the courts of justice; whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution void”. As an aside, I find it curious that the Constitution does not explicitly give the courts the sole power to decide constitutionality of the laws even though the issue was discussed during the drafting of the Constitution. Hamilton describes it as a duty and their province. He states “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is in fact, and must be, regarded by the judges as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.” He clearly believes the courts have the exclusive responsibility and power to judge the constitutionality of federal law but it is not clear that all of the founders believed that. It was not until 1803 that the Supreme Court declared that it had not only the duty but it was their province to decide unconstitutionality, called judicial review. Both Jefferson and Madison argued prior to 1803 that the states collectively had a right to declare laws unconstitutional. One can realistically wonder if the framers of the Constitution wanted the courts to be the sole voice on federal law constitutionality.


Federalist Papers Summary 78