posted
Omega: "The popular vote that instituted the Constitution."
Except that there wasn't a popular vote. The State Legislatures voted to ratify the Constitution, not the people. Virginia was one of the very close votes, 89 to 79. (We know there were more people than that in Virginia at the time.
So does that make the Constitution... unconstitutional?
------------------ "My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q
posted
Hmmm. Let's sue. I wonder how the Supreme Court would rule?
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
posted
Also, it's important to keep in mind that the Supreme Court doesn't go around looking through the various laws of the land and deciding if they're legal or not.
Unless, of course, it's the Supreme Court of Florida.
So does that make the Constitution... unconstitutional?
No, since the pre-existing law (Articles of Confederation) allowed for it, once all thirteen states ratified it. 'Course, the Constitution only supposedly needed nine, but it's a little late to squabble about that.
------------------ Disclaimer: "All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities." - `OverTheEdge'
posted
I don't know how state Supreme Courts are set up, but I'd imagine they're done on a state level in tune with individual state constitutions, so I can't speak for the legality of the actions of the Fl. Supreme Court.
I think First was being facetious.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
posted
Do you know that, apparently, there are some countries out there (probably socialist nazi supporters), that don't even have a US constitution? I didn't believe it at first either, but it's true! How on Earth do they manage?
------------------ "And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!" -Bubbles
posted
You bet we have a Constitution for a reason Omega.
And we have a Supreme Court for a reason.
And a Legislative Branch for a reason.
And we have federal laws for a reason.
It's what American's like to refer to as the Federal System of jurisprudence. And as each branch of the federal government interprets the living Constitution, then you get to see that we have checks and balances for a reason.
You keep chasing your tail in circular arguments about 'higher law' and the Constitution without taking into account that slavery was the highest law. William Lloyd Garrsion appealed to a higher court than the supreme Court in his opposition. And yet it wasn't really until 1954 that the rights of the citizen granted under the Constitution really got going.
In the end its about interpretation. That you have an opinion about how the Constitution is to be interpreted is just great. You, Omega, still haven't a clue about how Constitutional Law works.
------------------ "We're just going to have a lot of work. ... Redefining the role of the United States from enablers to keep the peace to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be an assignment." ~ George W. Bush, Deer-In-The-Headlights of the United States
posted
each branch of the federal government interprets the living Constitution
Let me make this perfectly clear: THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A LIVING DOCUMENT. If we have a living constitution in this country, we need to kill it. Now.
There is one way, and exactly one way, that the Constitution can be changed, and that's extremely rare. Other than that, the Constitution is a fixed document, with a fixed meaning. If the rules constantly change, then they aren't rules, and there is no reason for their existance.
Let's play a game of poker some time, Jay. We'll play with living rules. Sometimes, my two pair will beat your full house.
------------------ Disclaimer: "All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities." - `OverTheEdge'
posted
In that the document is open to interpretation it is 'living' in a sense. Not in a literal meaning.
Your "fixed meaninging" argument is specious.
------------------ "We're just going to have a lot of work. ... Redefining the role of the United States from enablers to keep the peace to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be an assignment." ~ George W. Bush, Deer-In-The-Headlights of the United States
Don't even try to debate with this person. He's obviously got his head shoved so far up his wazoo that it doesn't matter.
Thus begins my apathetic political state.
NOTHING MATTERS.
------------------ "Okashii na... namida ga nagareteru. Hitotsu mo kanashikunai no ni." (That's funny... my tears are falling. And I'm not sad at all.) - Quatre Raberba Winner
posted
Omega: As long as you declare ahead of time that two pair beat a full house, and make sure everyone has ample opportunity to make themselves aware of it before playing, what's wrong w/ that?
------------------ My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.
"Living" rules would be a bit more like playing Kirk's Iotian version of fizzbin.
"This rule applies, unless its Tuesday, in which case THIS rule applies, except when it's dark..." I'll explain the rules as we go along.
A better analogy, however, would be to liken the concept of a 'living document' to a game of "Calvinball," where Calvin makes up the rules as he goes along, just to guarantee he wins.
------------------ "My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited January 31, 2001).]
But that's what makes a debate with Omega so much fun!
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
Food for thought: Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand have constitutions that don't play anywhere close to the same role in the democratic process as the United States and its own bloathed mass of Neo-Classical/Pre-Romantic English. Hell, Britain pretty much doesn't have one at all.
More food for thought: The aforementioned countries have yet to spontaneously combust.
Further food for thought: The reverance Americans extend towards their constitution, might be, shall we say, a bit misguided.
------------------ "People have the right to discriminate based on religion." "There is no "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution" -Omega, Jan 26 and 30, respectively
------------------ "And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!" -Bubbles
posted
I know, Liam, but that was a whole dozen posts ago, and we all know Omega's attention span when it comes to issues such as this
------------------ "People have the right to discriminate based on religion." "There is no "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution" -Omega, Jan 26 and 30, respectively
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic