• 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

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,644
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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 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...

It may merely depend on the argument.
 
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...

And the president 'shall' turn over his tax returns, which he hasn't. So do they have meaning?

Impeachment is not a criminal trial, it's not even a trial but the right wants it to be a trial so they can make the complaints you are making.
 
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...

Today's massive number of plea bargains would seem to make the Constitution moot.
 
bongsaway said:
And the president 'shall' turn over his tax returns, which he hasn't. So do they have meaning?

Impeachment is not a criminal trial, it's not even a trial but the right wants it to be a trial so they can make the complaints you are making.
Click to expand...

Which clause in the Constitution is that?
 
danielpalos said:
It may merely depend on the argument.
Click to expand...

Yep, fewer than 10% of criminal cases are ever presented for consideration by a jury. Plea deals (bargains?) are the rule, rather than the exception, and are often for lesser included offenses and generally include guaranteed sentences at or below the recommended minimums.
 
Of course the words have meaning! Why else did our founders write them, after spilling their blood to attain freedom?

And those words are interpreted by SCOTUS.
 
looks like engaging in bribery can still cause a president a problem or two.
 
bongsaway said:
And the president 'shall' turn over his tax returns, which he hasn't. So do they have meaning?

Impeachment is not a criminal trial, it's not even a trial but the right wants it to be a trial so they can make the complaints you are making.
Click to expand...

Where, exactly, is that (bolded above) stated in the Constitution or federal law?
 
j brown's body said:
Today's massive number of plea bargains would seem to make the Constitution moot.
Click to expand...

Yep, that right (to a jury trial) is generally limited to the maximum charge (and sentence) possible and includes being represented by a public defender who has considerably less resources made available to them than the state (prosecutor) has.
 
bongsaway said:
And the president 'shall' turn over his tax returns, which he hasn't. So do they have meaning?

Impeachment is not a criminal trial, it's not even a trial but the right wants it to be a trial so they can make the complaints you are making.
Click to expand...

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.
 
j brown's body said:
Today's massive number of plea bargains would seem to make the Constitution moot.
Click to expand...

There are several factors that explain the high number of plea bargains, and one is minimum mandatory sentences. The other is the widespread suppression of knowledge about jury power.

The Constitution has become irrelevant because our elected representatives do not honor their oath of office. As Ben Franklin wondered, we could not keep the Republic.
 
bongsaway said:
And the president 'shall' turn over his tax returns, which he hasn't. So do they have meaning?

Impeachment is not a criminal trial, it's not even a trial but the right wants it to be a trial so they can make the complaints you are making.
Click to expand...
There is go law requiring the President to turn over his taxes; in fact there's an entire Amendment that protects his right not to. Without due process, of course. And before you say it congress saying "let me see" is not due process.
 
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...

"Shall" is as unequivocal as Constitution werding goes.

If you "shall" do x or "shall not" do x, it is pretty clear.

For "shall" read "must".
 
bongsaway said:
And the president 'shall' turn over his tax returns, which he hasn't. So do they have meaning?

Impeachment is not a criminal trial, it's not even a trial but the right wants it to be a trial so they can make the complaints you are making.
Click to expand...

LOL
Can you point to the constitution that says the president shall turn over tax records to Congress?
I guess every president prior to Nixon violated the constitution for failing to turn over tax records.
The courts will decide if Trump has to turn over tax records. That’s how it works when you have three branches of government.
 
Rich2018 said:
"Shall" is as unequivocal as Constitution werding goes.

If you "shall" do x or "shall not" do x, it is pretty clear.

For "shall" read "must".
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I guess my point was that despite that language commanding the government to do certain things and not do certain other things, the government does as it pleases, disobeying the spirit and the letter of the law, even as the Supreme Court remains mostly silent.
 
Outlook said:
LOL
Can you point to the constitution that says the president shall turn over tax records to Congress?
I guess every president prior to Nixon violated the constitution for failing to turn over tax records.
The courts will decide if Trump has to turn over tax records. That’s how it works when you have three branches of government.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to tell me the only laws we have are laws mentioned in the constitution? Are speeding tickets a part of the constitution?
 
bongsaway said:
Are you trying to tell me the only laws we have are laws mentioned in the constitution? Are speeding tickets a part of the constitution?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction. Can you show me the law that says a president has to turn over his tax records. LOL
The demand for Trump’s tax records like the impeachment is all political.
 
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...

Are these the same experts that testified at the House hearings?
Jessica says that the justices of the Supreme Court are the ones that will determine if Trump is required to turn over records. She says the Court will have to address the separation of powers issue. That’s how the process works. Otherwise Congress can abuse their power as we saw during the impeachment.
Andy says Congress needs a legitimate legislative purpose. Is the purpose simply political?

I didn’t read any of the other opinions, I read enough to know you need to try again.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Thanks for that. I guess my point was that despite that language commanding the government to do certain things and not do certain other things, the government does as it pleases, disobeying the spirit and the letter of the law, even as the Supreme Court remains mostly silent.
Click to expand...

There are several grey areas to the Constitution that so so called "genius" framers didn't cover.

It relies on members of the government to be honorable and stand by the spirit of the law - which in 2019/2020 is a forlorn hope.


If the president doesn't like the Supreme Court's decisions, what's to stop him, and a supportive Congress, expanding the size of the SC with more favorable justices ?
 
Rich2018 said:
There are several grey areas to the Constitution that so so called "genius" framers didn't cover.

It relies on members of the government to be honorable and stand by the spirit of the law - which in 2019/2020 is a forlorn hope.


If the president doesn't like the Supreme Court's decisions, what's to stop him, and a supportive Congress, expanding the size of the SC with more favorable justices ?
Click to expand...

Right you are! A proper constitution is totally useless when craven humans govern.
 
Thoreau72 said:
There are several factors that explain the high number of plea bargains, and one is minimum mandatory sentences. The other is the widespread suppression of knowledge about jury power.

The Constitution has become irrelevant because our elected representatives do not honor their oath of office. As Ben Franklin wondered, we could not keep the Republic.
Click to expand...

Was it surrpressed? Or did the American people fail to educate themselves?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Was it surrpressed? Or did the American people fail to educate themselves?
Click to expand...

A little bit of both, of course.

The official and formal suppression began with the Sparf decision in 1895. SCOTUS informed lower courts that they had no obligation to inform juries of their power to nullify. More than 100 years on, no court anywhere will allow an attorney to discuss the matter of jury nullification, even though many decisions in the early days of the Republic specifically addressed the jury power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom