Myths about American politics...

[Nym90]

The Constitution was crafted to be a living document. It was left deliberately vague in many cases due to the fact that the Framers had the foresight to realize that they couldn't possibly know what specific issues would arise in the future--and which issues that at the time seemed vital would later fade to obscurity (the 3rd Amendment comes to mind here).

But the general principles to be upheld were laid out, and the rest of the document is a guide as to how to achieve them; but when we disagree about how to best achieve those principles, the proper place to resolve those disagreements is at the ballot box, not in the courts. IMO the courts should only intervene when Constutitional princples are being clearly violated by the law.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

But the general principles to be upheld were laid out, and the rest of the document is a guide as to how to achieve them; but when we disagree about how to best achieve those principles, the proper place to resolve those disagreements is at the ballot box, not in the courts. IMO the courts should only intervene when Constutitional princples are being clearly violated by the law.

What if the Constitution is unclear on a matter? Should we leave it up to the people to decide what the Constitution says?

[Brittain33]

And just because I disagree with the way it was accomplished doesn't mean I disagree with increasing civil rights. 

If you oppose the only viable route to enacting civil rights, you oppose civil rights. Even if you are a nice, honest person who genuinely wishes civil rights were in place.

[The Mikado]

That the 9th Amendment...scratch that.

The 9th Amendment.  Period.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The Constitution was crafted to be a living document. It was left deliberately vague in many cases due to the fact that the Framers had the foresight to realize that they couldn't possibly know what specific issues would arise in the future--and which issues that at the time seemed vital would later fade to obscurity (the 3rd Amendment comes to mind here).

But the changes to the Constitution were not meant to be done via the Courts; they should be done via amendments.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And just because I disagree with the way it was accomplished doesn't mean I disagree with increasing civil rights. 

If you oppose the only viable route to enacting civil rights, you oppose civil rights. Even if you are a nice, honest person who genuinely wishes civil rights were in place.

Well I disagree with that.  Opposition to the route taken does not mean opposition to the end destination.

[Franzl]

And just because I disagree with the way it was accomplished doesn't mean I disagree with increasing civil rights. 

If you oppose the only viable route to enacting civil rights, you oppose civil rights. Even if you are a nice, honest person who genuinely wishes civil rights were in place.

Well I disagree with that.  Opposition to the route taken does not mean opposition to the end destination.

I'm against people going 150 mph on the Interstate, but I'm also against letting police do speed checks.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The Constitution was crafted to be a living document. It was left deliberately vague in many cases due to the fact that the Framers had the foresight to realize that they couldn't possibly know what specific issues would arise in the future--and which issues that at the time seemed vital would later fade to obscurity (the 3rd Amendment comes to mind here).

But the changes to the Constitution were not meant to be done via the Courts; they should be done via amendments.

Marbury v. Madison?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The Constitution was crafted to be a living document. It was left deliberately vague in many cases due to the fact that the Framers had the foresight to realize that they couldn't possibly know what specific issues would arise in the future--and which issues that at the time seemed vital would later fade to obscurity (the 3rd Amendment comes to mind here).

But the changes to the Constitution were not meant to be done via the Courts; they should be done via amendments.

Marbury v. Madison?

What do you mean?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The Constitution was crafted to be a living document. It was left deliberately vague in many cases due to the fact that the Framers had the foresight to realize that they couldn't possibly know what specific issues would arise in the future--and which issues that at the time seemed vital would later fade to obscurity (the 3rd Amendment comes to mind here).

But the changes to the Constitution were not meant to be done via the Courts; they should be done via amendments.

Marbury v. Madison?

What do you mean?

Sorry, made a mistake. Disregard that statement.

Anyway, isn't it the courts' job to interpret the law and, by extension, the Constitution?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The Constitution was crafted to be a living document. It was left deliberately vague in many cases due to the fact that the Framers had the foresight to realize that they couldn't possibly know what specific issues would arise in the future--and which issues that at the time seemed vital would later fade to obscurity (the 3rd Amendment comes to mind here).

But the changes to the Constitution were not meant to be done via the Courts; they should be done via amendments.

Marbury v. Madison?

What do you mean?

Sorry, made a mistake. Disregard that statement.

Anyway, isn't it the courts' job to interpret the law and, by extension, the Constitution?

Yes, it's their job to interpret the law and the Constitution (altough I'd argue not by extension - I'd argue those two are different in their origin, although same in ultimate outcome... a small difference).

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The Constitution was crafted to be a living document. It was left deliberately vague in many cases due to the fact that the Framers had the foresight to realize that they couldn't possibly know what specific issues would arise in the future--and which issues that at the time seemed vital would later fade to obscurity (the 3rd Amendment comes to mind here).

But the changes to the Constitution were not meant to be done via the Courts; they should be done via amendments.

Marbury v. Madison?

What do you mean?

Sorry, made a mistake. Disregard that statement.

Anyway, isn't it the courts' job to interpret the law and, by extension, the Constitution?

Yes, it's their job to interpret the law and the Constitution (altough I'd argue not by extension - I'd argue those two are different in their origin, although same in ultimate outcome... a small difference).

Were the civil rights cases (Brown v Board of Education and stuff) not interpretations of the law and Constitution?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

1. Reagan Democrats
2. Moderate Republicans
3. Millionaire/Billionaire Republicans (You may have lots of 6 figure salary Republicans, but the higher and lower up you get, the more liberal voters become.)
4. Suburban/moderate swing voters (in some cases)
5. Blue-collar Santorum supporters (from this election -- he was way too conservative on social issues for them)
6. Wealthy suburbanite Republicans (once again, in some cases)
7. The "historic Republican landslide of 2010"

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The Constitution was crafted to be a living document. It was left deliberately vague in many cases due to the fact that the Framers had the foresight to realize that they couldn't possibly know what specific issues would arise in the future--and which issues that at the time seemed vital would later fade to obscurity (the 3rd Amendment comes to mind here).

But the changes to the Constitution were not meant to be done via the Courts; they should be done via amendments.

Marbury v. Madison?

What do you mean?

Sorry, made a mistake. Disregard that statement.

Anyway, isn't it the courts' job to interpret the law and, by extension, the Constitution?

Yes, it's their job to interpret the law and the Constitution (altough I'd argue not by extension - I'd argue those two are different in their origin, although same in ultimate outcome... a small difference).

Were the civil rights cases (Brown v Board of Education and stuff) not interpretations of the law and Constitution?

Yes.  They were.  And equal protection under the law is something that should be enforced in schools, because that's a public institution.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The Constitution was crafted to be a living document. It was left deliberately vague in many cases due to the fact that the Framers had the foresight to realize that they couldn't possibly know what specific issues would arise in the future--and which issues that at the time seemed vital would later fade to obscurity (the 3rd Amendment comes to mind here).

But the changes to the Constitution were not meant to be done via the Courts; they should be done via amendments.

Marbury v. Madison?

What do you mean?

Sorry, made a mistake. Disregard that statement.

Anyway, isn't it the courts' job to interpret the law and, by extension, the Constitution?

Yes, it's their job to interpret the law and the Constitution (altough I'd argue not by extension - I'd argue those two are different in their origin, although same in ultimate outcome... a small difference).

Were the civil rights cases (Brown v Board of Education and stuff) not interpretations of the law and Constitution?

Yes.  They were.  And equal protection under the law is something that should be enforced in schools, because that's a public institution.

But private institutions can defy the Constitution all they want, right?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The Constitution was crafted to be a living document. It was left deliberately vague in many cases due to the fact that the Framers had the foresight to realize that they couldn't possibly know what specific issues would arise in the future--and which issues that at the time seemed vital would later fade to obscurity (the 3rd Amendment comes to mind here).

But the changes to the Constitution were not meant to be done via the Courts; they should be done via amendments.

Marbury v. Madison?

What do you mean?

Sorry, made a mistake. Disregard that statement.

Anyway, isn't it the courts' job to interpret the law and, by extension, the Constitution?

Yes, it's their job to interpret the law and the Constitution (altough I'd argue not by extension - I'd argue those two are different in their origin, although same in ultimate outcome... a small difference).

Were the civil rights cases (Brown v Board of Education and stuff) not interpretations of the law and Constitution?

Yes.  They were.  And equal protection under the law is something that should be enforced in schools, because that's a public institution.

But private institutions can defy the Constitution all they want, right?

It depends what the issue is.  Take the First Amendment, for example: if a private company wants to restrict speech, that's their right.  What authority, under the Constitution does Congress have to say a small diner can't have separate seating for whites and blacks?  In my opinion, they don't.  Does that mean I think diners should be able to segregate seating?  Absolutely not.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

That being said, I realize that I'm in an extreme minority in my opinions, and if I were in a judicial position, I'd put my personal view aside and stick to the precedents of what the Court has decided.  I think the Court got the case(s) wrong, but at this point, we have to move forward on the path we're on - to reverse such cases would put the legal system into chaos.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

My background has nothing to do with my beliefs.

How can it not do, to some extent?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why does this matter more to you than basic fairness?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is not a trick and it has nothing to do with empathy.

[Torie]

Well Al, you don't just ignore the law because it's fair. Going down that road can degrade the rule of law. Having said that, Inks is taking a very tight interpretation of the interstate commerce clause here.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

That being said, I realize that I'm in an extreme minority in my opinions, and if I were in a judicial position, I'd put my personal view aside and stick to the precedents of what the Court has decided.  I think the Court got the case(s) wrong, but at this point, we have to move forward on the path we're on - to reverse such cases would put the legal system into chaos.

I would probably be more of a moderate judge and using a liberal/conservative Judicial philosophy based on each case rather than a "one size fits all" approach.

[hawkeye59]

That America is a Christian nation.

[Purch]

That the two major political parties differ on foreign policy.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

My background has nothing to do with my beliefs.

How can it not do, to some extent?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why does this matter more to you than basic fairness?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is not a trick and it has nothing to do with empathy.

I'm not saying fairness should matter less than the Constitution.  I'm saying you should amend the Constitution to make it fair, rather than twist what it says to force fairness into it where it was never written.

The framers weren't "fair".  Instead of trying to pretend what they wrote was, change what they wrote.  But until you do that, you have to abide by what they wrote.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I did not give them much though, but what are your thoughts on these ten?

- American politics is a bipolar contest betwixt "liberals" and "conservatives."
- Donors and interest groups oft buy the votes of most high elected officials.
- All American politicians are unprincipled, opportunistic, and lie to win votes.
- Democrats dislike free enterprise, and are disloyal to the U.S. Constitution.
- Republicans do not care about human suffering, poverty, or social injustice.
- The invasion and occupation of Iraq was centered on securing oil interests.
- Social conservatives are closed-minded bigots who reject science and logic.
- Liberals try to punish hard work, foster dependency, and repress Christians.
- Ones vote in an election does not matter because elites call all of the shots.
- Compromise and bipartisanship will yield the best solutions to our problems.

My initial thoughts are that all of those sentences were somehow the same length.  I'm impressed.

Having some obsessive-compulsive tendencies is a time sink, ftl, and such. xD

Text is actually much harder for the human eye to read like that. *_*

[Badger]

The Constitution was crafted to be a living document. It was left deliberately vague in many cases due to the fact that the Framers had the foresight to realize that they couldn't possibly know what specific issues would arise in the future--and which issues that at the time seemed vital would later fade to obscurity (the 3rd Amendment comes to mind here).

But the changes to the Constitution were not meant to be done via the Courts; they should be done via amendments.

Marbury v. Madison?

What do you mean?

Sorry, made a mistake. Disregard that statement.

Anyway, isn't it the courts' job to interpret the law and, by extension, the Constitution?

Yes, it's their job to interpret the law and the Constitution (altough I'd argue not by extension - I'd argue those two are different in their origin, although same in ultimate outcome... a small difference).

Were the civil rights cases (Brown v Board of Education and stuff) not interpretations of the law and Constitution?

Yes.  They were.  And equal protection under the law is something that should be enforced in schools, because that's a public institution.

But private institutions can defy the Constitution all they want, right?

It depends what the issue is.  Take the First Amendment, for example: if a private company wants to restrict speech, that's their right.  What authority, under the Constitution does Congress have to say a small diner can't have separate seating for whites and blacks?  In my opinion, they don't.  Does that mean I think diners should be able to segregate seating?  Absolutely not.

The SCOTUS unanimously disagreed with you. Remember this as you enter 1L.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States