• 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!

Commerce Clause discussion

Rich2018 said:
I think the Constitution should have been written with an expiration date.
Click to expand...



Rich2018 said:
I think the Constitution should have been written with an expiration date.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Regardless, counting heads doesn’t establish the Constitution is ambiguous, any more than counting the number of heads of experts in agreement in any field means they are right about their view.

So you wish to consider that SC justices will deliberately interpret the Constitution incorrectly to further their political ideals ?

1. This would negate the need for a Constitution at all as what it says is worthless
Click to expand...

No. The Constitution would still have value because “what it says” permits people to evaluate what the Court is saying, and inspire movements to influence the Court to honor the text, which has occurred over the last 35 years.

Second, the fact the Court at times follows its meaning has value.

Or 2. The Constitution is so badly written that well learned men can draw opposite conclusions
Click to expand...

Same false dilemma as before. Same flaw. This ignores the possibility a well written constitution can at times have “men draw opposite conclusions” and it also ignores the possibility a well written constitution will still have some people refusing to adhere to it.

Most countries manage it
Click to expand...

Useless. I’m not aware of “most countries” doing what you claim, writing an unambiguous constitution. Second, the remark is useless for another reason, what other countries did write doesn’t mean the Constitution is ambiguous.

A 5:4 ruling is obviously a bad thing. It smacks of uncertainty.
Click to expand...

According to who? You? So what! It doesn’t matter what you personally perceive as bad or reflects uncertainty. There’s no evidence supporting your claim above.

And again, your reasoning is flawed. Whether the ruling is “bad” or “uncertain” isn’t measured by numbers of those in majority in relation to the minority. Rather, “bad” and “uncertainty” is evaluated by the strength of the arguments, the evidence, and the text of the Constitution. Head counting logically doesn’t tell anyone the decision is “bad” or “uncertain.”

Absolutely it is...a 9-0 ruling speaks of clarity and certainty
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Why? Because a 9-0 ruling can be wrong, “bad” and create “uncertainty” and lack “clarity” when it cannot be justified by the text of the Constitution and evidence. Head counting logically demonstrates nothing other than how many did or didn’t agree.

A judge might accept an 11-1 guilty verdict, maybe even a 10-2, but no way would a judge accept a 7-5 guilty verdict
Click to expand...

This is a useless comparison. First, for criminal jury trials, the law requires unanimous verdicts. Second, if the law allowed 7-5 verdicts, there’d be 7-5 verdicts. Third, it’s a head scratcher why you’d choose verdicts as an example because we know the verdicts can be wrong, even when unanimous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Samwise said:
The treaty into which it voluntarily acceded.
Click to expand...

Article VI draws a clear distinction between treaties and the constitution. Article I §10 states that no State may enter into treaties.

So from a legal perspective, your classification of the constitution as a "treaty" is without merit.

That's why the United States isn't a confederacy in the same way a country like Canada is.
 
Cordelier said:
Article VI draws a clear distinction between treaties and the constitution. Article I §10 states that no State may enter into treaties.

So from a legal perspective, your classification of the constitution as a "treaty" is without merit.

That's why the United States isn't a confederacy in the same way a country like Canada is.
Click to expand...

The constitution is a treaty. It is an agreement established between sovereign states. That's what the definition of a treaty is.
 
Cordelier said:
There's no text in the constitution stating it is a treaty.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. There is no such language. I'm referring to it as a treaty because it is an agreement between sovereign states. So that's kind of what a treaty is.
 
Samwise said:
You are absolutely correct. There is no such language. I'm referring to it as a treaty because it is an agreement between sovereign states. So that's kind of what a treaty is.
Click to expand...

It's not a treaty unless it is signed by both parties.



Oh no.....you lose!!!!
 
Samwise said:
You are absolutely correct. There is no such language. I'm referring to it as a treaty because it is an agreement between sovereign states. So that's kind of what a treaty is.
Click to expand...

Whatever sovereignty the States possessed before they ratified the Constitution was superceded by the United States itself. In fact, by foregoing the accepted powers of sovereignty enumerated in Article I §10, I'm having a hard time giving your argument that States still possess "full sovereign powers" to have little or no credence. Isn't it a point of fact, then, that states are only as "sovereign" as the Constitution allows them to be?
 
Cordelier said:
Whatever sovereignty the States possessed before they ratified the Constitution was superceded by the United States itself. In fact, by foregoing the accepted powers of sovereignty enumerated in Article I §10, I'm having a hard time giving your argument that States still possess "full sovereign powers" to have little or no credence. Isn't it a point of fact, then, that states are only as "sovereign" as the Constitution allows them to be?
Click to expand...

Of course, while they choose to participate. Those are the terms of the treaty. Once they quit, however, it no longer applies to them.
 
Samwise said:
Of course, while they choose to participate. Those are the terms of the treaty. Once they quit, however, it no longer applies to them.
Click to expand...

But, as you've pointed out repeatedly, the Constitution doesn't grant them to sovereign power of withdrawal. There is no clause within the Constitution that allows a State to secede.
 
Cordelier said:
But, as you've pointed out repeatedly, the Constitution doesn't grant them to sovereign power of withdrawal. There is no clause within the Constitution that allows a State to secede.
Click to expand...

Ah, but there is also no clause prohibiting. They wouldn't ever agree to such a stipulation in their treaty. What is not prohibited is obviously allowed.
 
Samwise said:
I sure as heck did. No article, section, and clause forthcoming?

I've forgotten. It's been so long.

So you really can't cite the language in the constitution prohibiting any of the several sovereign states from leaving the union?
Click to expand...


Why do you need me to repeat the same citations you already read in Story's comments ?

Unless you're admitting you didn't read them and genuinely have no clue as the clauses cited and the language quoted ?


What did Story say ?
 
Rich2018 said:
I would say "covenant" is a better term.
Click to expand...

You would call an agreement between sovereign states a covenant and not a treaty? So when would you call something a treaty?
 
Rich2018 said:
Why do you need me to repeat the same citations you already read in Story's comments ?

Unless you're admitting you didn't read them and genuinely have no clue as the clauses cited and the language quoted ?


What did Story say ?
Click to expand...

It was so long ago that I read all that. I've forgotten. Why do I need to know what Story said, anyway? Why don't we just try to find the text in the actual constitution forbidding any of the several sovereign states from leaving the union?
 
Samwise said:
Ah, but there is also no clause prohibiting. They wouldn't ever agree to such a stipulation in their treaty. What is not prohibited is obviously allowed.
Click to expand...

Really?? That seems a stretch to me... I'd say what is not prohibited is arguably allowed - but you'd have to make a case for it.

Take the 14th Amendment, for example... it states that everyone born or naturalized in the US is both a citizen of the United States and of the State in which they reside. So if a State wanted to secede, but it wasn't a clear decision... say, 51% of the population voted in favor... would not the Federal Government be justified in acting to protect the interests of it's citizens who didn't want to secede? And if the principle holds true for a 51-49 vote, why not a 99-1 vote?

I'm not suggesting that a State can't secede under any circumstances.... just that it can't unilaterally secede. There has to be a common agreement between the Federal Government and the State. Article IV §3 gives Congress clear powers there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom