• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Thoreau72 said:
Right you are! A proper constitution is totally useless when craven humans govern.
Click to expand...

A constitution is a good idea, it needs to be written in modern legal language though and offer as little wiggle room for interpretation as possible.
 
Rich2018 said:
A constitution is a good idea, it needs to be written in modern legal language though and offer as little wiggle room for interpretation as possible.
Click to expand...

Are subsequent generations unable to interpret the document? I know the literacy rate is quite low, but it seems the more sophisticated amongst us are able to interpret fairly well.

What's missing in the equation is honorable humans.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Are subsequent generations unable to interpret the document?
Click to expand...

Absoluytely, the trouble is the the Constitution, as written, can be interpreted a number of ways.

Witness the number of 5:4 split decisions in the Supreme Court.
 
Rich2018 said:
Absoluytely, the trouble is the the Constitution, as written, can be interpreted a number of ways.

Witness the number of 5:4 split decisions in the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

What I find more troubling is the SCOTUS's reluctance to reverse such (weak?) precedents and/or refusal to accept a case appealed to them. Federal government powers continue to expand despite the lack of changes (amendments) to the Constitution.

One of the most troubling recent decisions was the PPACA's "individual mandate" being allowed - the (new?) federal power to additionally tax income (as a penalty?) based on how one's income was not later spent on a specific 'private' good/service was especially troubling. To assert that the 16A granted the federal government the power to demand that folks (taxpayers?) have "federally approved" medical care insurance coverage was a ridiculous assertion (interpretation?).
 
Rich2018 said:
Absoluytely, the trouble is the the Constitution, as written, can be interpreted a number of ways.

Witness the number of 5:4 split decisions in the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

That is certainly a strong point, and I agree. That said, most of the document is written in specific language using words with specific meanings.

The terms in the OP seem very simple to the layman. I think it's the lawyers who have the trouble. Lawyers and those with special interests.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What I find more troubling is the SCOTUS's reluctance to reverse such (weak?) precedents and/or refusal to accept a case appealed to them. Federal government powers continue to expand despite the lack of changes (amendments) to the Constitution.

One of the most troubling recent decisions was the PPACA's "individual mandate" being allowed - the (new?) federal power to additionally tax income (as a penalty?) based on how one's income was not later spent on a specific 'private' good/service was especially troubling. To assert that the 16A granted the federal government the power to demand that folks (taxpayers?) have "federally approved" medical care insurance coverage was a ridiculous assertion (interpretation?).
Click to expand...

Obama care. A difficult topic.

Critics will point how unconstitutional it was to force people buy something.

Look at the objectives though. The cost of medicare in the USA is scandalously obscene - you absolutely have to have some kind of insurance. You might argue that people should be free to live their lives how they see fit and live in suffering rather seek medical helf. Ultimately the tax payer has to pick up the tab though if an uninsured person is take to hospital with a life threatening condition.
Such a person may end up on disability because earlier medical help wasn't sought - again the taxpayer picks up to tab.

The biggest reason to support it though are dependents...because a man might not get insurance one year, his wife and children have to suffer should they need a doctor or dentist.
Should the government not protect them ?

If it's unconstitutional, then pass a constitutional amendment to allow it.
 
Thoreau72 said:
That is certainly a strong point, and I agree. That said, most of the document is written in specific language using words with specific meanings.

The terms in the OP seem very simple to the layman. I think it's the lawyers who have the trouble. Lawyers and those with special interests.
Click to expand...

A vaguely or simply written law has lawyers rubbing their hands.

IMO all SC decisions should be unanimous. When they're not, it should be mandatory to amend the Constitution within a given time period.
 
Rich2018 said:
A vaguely or simply written law has lawyers rubbing their hands.

IMO all SC decisions should be unanimous. When they're not, it should be mandatory to amend the Constitution within a given time period.
Click to expand...

That all decisions be unanimous seems most naïve and impractical, unrealistic.
 
Rich2018 said:
Absoluytely, the trouble is the the Constitution, as written, can be interpreted a number of ways.

Witness the number of 5:4 split decisions in the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

As Justice Scalia said in “A Matter of Interpretation,” and I paraphrase with some artistic license, original meaning doesn’t mean those adherents of original meaning will agree. But at least they agree there is a meaning, the meaning isn’t whatever tickle in their genitalia gives them, and the meaning is what those words or phrases meant at or near the time the law took effect. There may exist more than one plausible original meaning. There may be one original meaning but disagreement as to the outcome when the original meaning is applied to current facts.

5-4 decisions doesn’t negate the words in the Constitution having a meaning, a meaning that already exists and isn’t whatever the justice/judge can imagine.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Constitutional terms, do they have meaning, do they have weight?

They have about as much meaning and weight as your rights.:unsure13:
 
bongsaway said:
Trump tax returns: Can Congress for the president to hand them over? - Vox

Does this help or are you going to disagree with these scholars? My guess, the supreme court will also rule against the president.
Click to expand...

Have you read the 1924 law regarding this? It clearly states that the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee has the right to request tax information from any person holding federal office, however, it goes on to say under reasonable expectation that a crime has been committed. To use this law to gain "political fodder" on a candidate for political office is not justified under this law. Also, only members of those committees are allowed to view the tax records and all information is protected by federal law, therefore, if any information leaked out on any ones tax records then those members could be held accountable under federal law.

My suggestion would be to just leave it alone to avoid the possible leak of the POTUS tax records to the press. If he has committed any tax fraud I'm sure the IRS would be all over him by now.
 
j brown's body said:
Today's massive number of plea bargains would seem to make the Constitution moot.
Click to expand...

Nobody forced them to take a plea. They took the plea in exchanged for a lesser sentence. They had the right to go to a courtroom but they would likely lose because of the overwhelming evidence against them.
 
NotreDame said:
...5-4 decisions doesn’t negate the words in the Constitution having a meaning, a meaning that already exists and isn’t whatever the justice/judge can imagine...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Thoreau72 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Your query is vague. I’ll tackle the bail issue. I’m Missouri, the State Supreme Court just overhauled the bail rules to do justice to that clause. Ostensibly, it is supposed to be easier to get defendants out on bail these days.

As for the rest, it depends. All I can say, as a defense attorney, is the 4th Amendment is a skeleton of what it once was. Whereas, the penumbra of the 14th Amendment is alive and strong. Go figure implied rights would be more respected than express rights...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Rich2018 said:
A vaguely or simply written law has lawyers rubbing their hands.

IMO all SC decisions should be unanimous. When they're not, it should be mandatory to amend the Constitution within a given time period.
Click to expand...

So, when 9 people don’t agree, you think the entire structure of our government ought to be amended? It seems to me the opposite is best. If there is not a majority, nothing ought to change. Only majority opinions warrant change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
American said:
Which clause in the Constitution is that?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Thoreau72 said:
In a government run by scofflaws, no law has meaning.

I have not made any complaints in the OP, I merely asked a series of rhetorical questions hoping to encourage rational public dialogue.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Rich2018 said:
Absoluytely, the trouble is the the Constitution, as written, can be interpreted a number of ways.

Witness the number of 5:4 split decisions in the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

That is not necessarily an issue of interpretation, as a willingness of ideologues to ignore it when inconvenient.
 
clapee said:
Your query is vague. I’ll tackle the bail issue. I’m Missouri, the State Supreme Court just overhauled the bail rules to do justice to that clause. Ostensibly, it is supposed to be easier to get defendants out on bail these days.

As for the rest, it depends. All I can say, as a defense attorney, is the 4th Amendment is a skeleton of what it once was. Whereas, the penumbra of the 14th Amendment is alive and strong. Go figure implied rights would be more respected than express rights...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

How difficult is it to start a class action?
 
Rich2018 said:
It would focus the minds of the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

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.
 
It is about our supreme law of the land in any conflict of laws. Our express supreme law of the land must be more supreme than any statute law enacted by the legislature.
 
It is up to us, the citizens of the United States, to restore meaning to the Constitution by voting out the charlatans who denigrate it at every opportunity. I support the efforts of the Lincoln Project, not because I agree with their policy prescriptions (I most assuredly do not), but because they are dedicated to This:
the priority for all patriotic Americans must be a shared fidelity to the Constitution and a commitment to defeat those candidates who have abandoned their constitutional oaths, regardless of party.
Click to expand...
 
clapee said:
So, when 9 people don’t agree, you think the entire structure of our government ought to be amended?
Click to expand...

Who said the ENTIRE structure of the US government needs to be amended ?


It seems to me the opposite is best. If there is not a majority, nothing ought to change. Only majority opinions warrant change.
Click to expand...

So you think that a constitution, that a panel of 9 senior judges can disagree 5:4 as to the meaning of what it says, is a good example of a well written legal document ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom