ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[a completely inoffensive name]

A lot of my arguments here are based on original intent, which I understand is subjective, but we can fairly easily deduce it using the founders' writings.

That is why your arguments are terrible. Original Intent is asking for the Constitution to be followed according to the Founding Fathers. Leaving aside the fact that there is never one intent for any part of the Constitution, the Constitution as written does not give the Supreme Court Constitutional Interpretation. The Supreme Court gave themselves that power 14 years after the Constitution was ratified. Asking for original intent is asking for a SCOTUS that does not decide what the Constitution says. Therefore according to original intent, anything is Constitutional as long as it is passed by Congress.

EDIT: So unless this is not clear, let me explain further. Since Original Intent is referred to as the philosophy for SCOTUS Justices to think of the Constitution as the Founders approved of it, how can a Supreme Court justice apply Original Intent when according to Original Intent he should not be deciding if a law follows the Original Intent of the Constitution?

Not even the Founding Fathers wanted original intent:

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law,naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer,it is an act of force and not of right.

Btw, the state is denying rights to homosexuals if they allow for private individuals to exclude from from commerce. Homosexuals have to live in a society which restricts their choices but heterosexuals do not receive the same treatment from homosexuals, so they live in a fundamentally different society and standard of living from homosexuals. That's unequal protection under the law. When you have a society that persecutes a minority group, state inaction is equivalent in practical manners to denying rights through law.

[Vincent Butler]

That is why your arguments are terrible. Original Intent is asking for the Constitution to be followed according to the Founding Fathers. Leaving aside the fact that there is never one intent for any part of the Constitution, the Constitution as written does not give the Supreme Court Constitutional Interpretation. The Supreme Court gave themselves that power 14 years after the Constitution was ratified. Asking for original intent is asking for a SCOTUS that does not decide what the Constitution says. Therefore according to original intent, anything is Constitutional as long as it is passed by Congress.

Not even the Founding Fathers wanted original intent:



Btw, the state is denying rights to homosexuals if they allow for private individuals to exclude from from commerce. Homosexuals have to live in a society which restricts their choices but heterosexuals do not receive the same treatment from homosexuals, so they live in a fundamentally different society and standard of living from homosexuals. That's unequal protection under the law. When you have a society that persecutes a minority group, state inaction is equivalent in practical manners to denying rights through law.

That is an interesting word, usufruct. I have never heard it before. Your argument by Jefferson is being taken out of context. The next generation can change the law, but the interpretation of the law as written does not change. As long as a bill does not violate the Bill of Rights (which acknowledged, not granted, those rights), yes, passing it would be constitutional if it was in the bounds of what Congress was constitutionally allowed to do. If not specifically granted Congress, and not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the states or people could decide on it.
As to denying homosexuals services, remember our founding fathers deemed homosexuality a crime, and thus their rights would have been forfeit. In fact, Jefferson advocated dismemberment as a punishment for sodomy. Several states had the death penalty for it. Therefore, homosexuals would not have been defended. And homosexuals are welcome to deny service to heterosexuals, have you heard of a gay bar? I saw an article not long ago that one just refused a man for being dressed like a woman, not that that is really relevant to this conversation, just something I found amusing.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That is an interesting word, usufruct. I have never heard it before. Your argument by Jefferson is being taken out of context. The next generation can change the law, but the interpretation of the law as written does not change. As long as a bill does not violate the Bill of Rights (which acknowledged, not granted, those rights), yes, passing it would be constitutional if it was in the bounds of what Congress was constitutionally allowed to do. If not specifically granted Congress, and not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the states or people could decide on it.
As to denying homosexuals services, remember our founding fathers deemed homosexuality a crime, and thus their rights would have been forfeit. In fact, Jefferson advocated dismemberment as a punishment for sodomy. Several states had the death penalty for it. Therefore, homosexuals would not have been defended. And homosexuals are welcome to deny service to heterosexuals, have you heard of a gay bar? I saw an article not long ago that one just refused a man for being dressed like a woman, not that that is really relevant to this conversation, just something I found amusing.

You did not respond to my argument and you did not read the Jefferson quote entirely.

Let me point out the last two sentences of what Jefferson said to make it clear:
"Every constitution, then, and every law,naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer,it is an act of force and not of right."

Jefferson is explicitly saying, the Constitution should not apply after 19 years. That it should be completely scrapped for the next generation to rewrite. So why are you arguing about the interpretation of the law when Jefferson clearly states that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution should have been done away with completely 206 years ago?

Secondly, let me point out my argument again, and tell me if you don't understand it:
Since Original Intent is referred to as the philosophy for SCOTUS Justices to think of the Constitution as the Founders approved of it, how can a Supreme Court justice apply Original Intent when according to Original Intent he should not be deciding if a law follows the Original Intent of the Constitution?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You did not respond to my argument and you did not read the Jefferson quote entirely.

Let me point out the last two sentences of what Jefferson said to make it clear:
"Every constitution, then, and every law,naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer,it is an act of force and not of right."

Jefferson is explicitly saying, the Constitution should not apply after 19 years. That it should be completely scrapped for the next generation to rewrite. So why are you arguing about the interpretation of the law when Jefferson clearly states that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution should have been done away with completely 206 years ago?

Secondly, let me point out my argument again, and tell me if you don't understand it:
Since Original Intent is referred to as the philosophy for SCOTUS Justices to think of the Constitution as the Founders approved of it, how can a Supreme Court justice apply Original Intent when according to Original Intent he should not be deciding if a law follows the Original Intent of the Constitution?

Yet Jefferson was also the primary voice of the following:

...Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--

He was not saying that any Constitution must be discarded, only that it's continuance should be based on the sufferance of the polity -- that any Constitution, as a mutually agreed upon social contract -- did not somehow thereby gain a life of its own superseding the agreement of polity. Jefferson was by no means an ardent opponent of the Constitution, though he disagreed with some of it, and his discussion of its ratification suggests that he thought the Constitution would hold sway for more than a single generation.

[Pannonian]

Yet Jefferson was also the primary voice of the following:

He was not saying that any Constitution must be discarded, only that it's continuance should be based on the sufferance of the polity -- that any Constitution, as a mutually agreed upon social contract -- did not somehow thereby gain a life of its own superseding the agreement of polity. Jefferson was by no means an ardent opponent of the Constitution, though he disagreed with some of it, and his discussion of its ratification suggests that he thought the Constitution would hold sway for more than a single generation.

In any case, AFAIK when amendments supersede items of the constitution, the amendments hold sway. Unless VB still holds by the old reckonings of representation of the inhabitants of the US.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yet Jefferson was also the primary voice of the following:



He was not saying that any Constitution must be discarded, only that it's continuance should be based on the sufferance of the polity -- that any Constitution, as a mutually agreed upon social contract -- did not somehow thereby gain a life of its own superseding the agreement of polity. Jefferson was by no means an ardent opponent of the Constitution, though he disagreed with some of it, and his discussion of its ratification suggests that he thought the Constitution would hold sway for more than a single generation.

It does not deter the bigger point that I make which is that Jefferson would not be a fan of original intent. In fact that even makes my point. I'm mistaken about the US Constitution in particular, but Jefferson was a person who felt that governments should be approved by its current inhabitants, or reformed at their whim.

[Vincent Butler]

It does not deter the bigger point that I make which is that Jefferson would not be a fan of original intent. In fact that even makes my point. I'm mistaken about the US Constitution in particular, but Jefferson was a person who felt that governments should be approved by its current inhabitants, or reformed at their whim.

Pannonian, the Constitution was called the Great Compromise, not everybody was happy. Until they started their sessions with prayer, for the first five weeks, nothing was getting done. And still not everybody got what they wanted, Patrick Henry did not even want a federal government. And yes, the new amendments hold sway. Else why make the provision for new amendments, I guess if new things come up.
ACIN, the Constitution was allowed to be changed, that is why there are amendments. But if the law keeps changing, your country has issues. And Jefferson was considered a liberal for his day, too.
EDIT: ACIN, I see what you mean, the Supreme Court is never given the power to rule on constitutionality, I just looked in my Constitution. Interesting point, I will have to study that one. I do know that the Constitution says that it is the rule by which all laws in the country must be judged (not quite in that wording). The point is, who judges if a law follows the Constitution? That warrants looking into. Interesting.

One last time

Agreed, I think this topic has been beaten to death. Besides, my homework beckons.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...EDIT: ACIN, I see what you mean, the Supreme Court is never given the power to rule on constitutionality, I just looked in my Constitution. Interesting point, I will have to study that one. I do know that the Constitution says that it is the rule by which all laws in the country must be judged (not quite in that wording). The point is, who judges if a law follows the Constitution? That warrants looking into. Interesting....

Well done, ACIN, well done. You have pushed him to embrace the first step to wisdom.

Take THAT all of you who say internet forums are nothing but intellectual Onanism.

[Vincent Butler]

You did not respond to my argument and you did not read the Jefferson quote entirely.

Let me point out the last two sentences of what Jefferson said to make it clear:
"Every constitution, then, and every law,naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer,it is an act of force and not of right."

Jefferson is explicitly saying, the Constitution should not apply after 19 years. That it should be completely scrapped for the next generation to rewrite. So why are you arguing about the interpretation of the law when Jefferson clearly states that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution should have been done away with completely 206 years ago?

Secondly, let me point out my argument again, and tell me if you don't understand it:
Since Original Intent is referred to as the philosophy for SCOTUS Justices to think of the Constitution as the Founders approved of it, how can a Supreme Court justice apply Original Intent when according to Original Intent he should not be deciding if a law follows the Original Intent of the Constitution?

I did too go over the entire article, specifically that section, and I stand by what I said, it appears the difference is in our interpretation. I responded by giving my interpretation, showing why I believed yours to be incorrect. Anyway, back to Original Intent, a law is to be interpreted based on how it lines up with the Constitution. If it is not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and not specifically a power given to Congress, the states and people have power to decide. Original intent says that the states and people get to decide, see Tenth Amendment. Congress gets certain powers. If they pass a law that they do not have given jurisdiction to pass, and it does not relate to things in the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court should strike it down as unconstitutional. The goal of the Constitution was limited government, especially limited federal government.
Pannonian, sorry, I forgot to reply to your last post. The people get their will passed through the legislature and the ballot box. A court overruling a law that the state legislature passed or the people voted on, if that issue was not mentioned in the Constitution, the court cannot say it is unconstitutional. No, I would not like a democracy overruling a republic just because I don't like what is wrong with the republic. No law will make everybody happy, just take the bad with the good, and vote how you want things. Just don't start rioting when things don't go your way, not saying that is what is causing riots, just noticing that riots are becoming the fashion lately.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I did too go over the entire article, specifically that section, and I stand by what I said, it appears the difference is in our interpretation. I responded by giving my interpretation, showing why I believed yours to be incorrect. Anyway, back to Original Intent, a law is to be interpreted based on how it lines up with the Constitution. If it is not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and not specifically a power given to Congress, the states and people have power to decide. Original intent says that the states and people get to decide, see Tenth Amendment. Congress gets certain powers. If they pass a law that they do not have given jurisdiction to pass, and it does not relate to things in the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court should strike it down as unconstitutional. The goal of the Constitution was limited government, especially limited federal government.

One last time, the Supreme Court under original intent can't strike down laws because the constitution doesn't give them the power under original intent. Original intent is impossible to implement. Under original intent, there is no interpretation to be made.