Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 28 Jun '16 17:19
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/06/27/veteran-federal-judges-stunning-declaration-about-the-constitution/

    A Federal judge has come out and publically said that the Constitution is outdated and thinks studying it is pointless..........along with every other Progressive on the face of the earth.
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    28 Jun '16 17:36 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/06/27/veteran-federal-judges-stunning-declaration-about-the-constitution/

    A Federal judge has come out and publically said that the Constitution is outdated and thinks studying it is pointless..........along with every other Progressive on the face of the earth.
    Richard Posner as a "progressive". He's a Reagan appointee who, in tandem with Robert Bork, essentially eviscerated anti-trust law.

    The mind reels.
  3. Standard member vivify
    rain
    28 Jun '16 17:39 / 2 edits
    edit: meh
  4. 28 Jun '16 18:26 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Richard Posner as a "progressive". He's a Reagan appointee who, in tandem with Robert Bork, essentially eviscerated anti-trust law.

    The mind reels.
    I could care less if his mother nursed Rush Limbaugh as an infant.

    WTH?

    Anyhew, he sounds Progressive to me. The Constitution now means nothing since we have cell phones, whatever that means.


    That aside, is it safe to say we both have nothing but disdain for this mental midget?

    It is a frightening thing knowing who is running the country.
  5. 28 Jun '16 18:51
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/06/27/veteran-federal-judges-stunning-declaration-about-the-constitution/

    A Federal judge has come out and publically said that the Constitution is outdated and thinks studying it is pointless..........along with every other Progressive on the face of the earth.
    Yet he had the freedom of speach to say that garbage.
  6. 28 Jun '16 19:00
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    Yet he had the freedom of speach to say that garbage.
    But now we have cell phones so I don't see how freedom of speech means anything now.
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    28 Jun '16 19:11
    Originally posted by whodey
    I could care less if his mother nursed Rush Limbaugh as an infant.

    WTH?

    Anyhew, he sounds Progressive to me. The Constitution now means nothing since we have cell phones, whatever that means.


    That aside, is it safe to say we both have nothing but disdain for this mental midget?

    It is a frightening thing knowing who is running the country.
    Posner was and is quite critical of the type of "originalism" championed by Scalia and Thomas, but ideologically he would best be described as moderately conservative - he's a laissez faire type on economics but somewhat socially liberal.

    This review of a Scalia book gives an example why Scalia "originalism" can yield perverse results contrary to the intent of an author:

    Does an ordinance that says that “no person may bring a vehicle into the park” apply to an ambulance that enters the park to save a person’s life? For Scalia and Garner, the answer is yes. After all, an ambulance is a vehicle—any dictionary will tell you that. If the authors of the ordinance wanted to make an exception for ambulances, they should have said so. And perverse results are a small price to pay for the objectivity that textual originalism offers (new dictionaries for new texts, old dictionaries for old ones).

    https://newrepublic.com/article/106441/scalia-garner-reading-the-law-textual-originalism

    This is also an interesting observation:

    A legislature is thwarted when a judge refuses to apply its handiwork to an unforeseen situation that is encompassed by the statute’s aim but is not a good fit with its text. Ignoring the limitations of foresight, and also the fact that a statute is a collective product that often leaves many questions of interpretation to be answered by the courts because the legislators cannot agree on the answers, the textual originalist demands that the legislature think through myriad hypothetical scenarios and provide for all of them explicitly rather than rely on courts to be sensible. In this way, textualism hobbles legislation—and thereby tilts toward “small government” and away from “big government,” which in modern America is a conservative preference.


    The entire article is a good read for those interested in the issue of "originalism" v. "original intent". Of course, my position is quite different from Posner's but his criticisms of "originalism" are quite good.
  8. 28 Jun '16 19:12
    Originally posted by whodey
    But now we have cell phones so I don't see how freedom of speech means anything now.
    I guess you are right. We can always sing in the shower too ifn we want.
  9. 28 Jun '16 20:00
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Posner was and is quite critical of the type of "originalism" championed by Scalia and Thomas, but ideologically he would best be described as moderately conservative - he's a laissez faire type on economics but somewhat socially liberal.

    This review of a Scalia book gives an example why Scalia "originalism" can yield perverse results contrary to the ...[text shortened]... my position is quite different from Posner's but his criticisms of "originalism" are quite good.
    I thought we were talking about the Constitution, and not the myriad of laws on the books such as vehicles not being able to enter parks.
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    28 Jun '16 20:59 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    I thought we were talking about the Constitution, and not the myriad of laws on the books such as vehicles not being able to enter parks.
    I thought we were talking about the interpretative rules for law. Last I checked, the Constitution was law - in fact it is the Supreme Law of the Land.

    Should it be interpreted under different rules than other laws are? Why?
  11. 28 Jun '16 21:14 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I thought we were talking about the interpretative rules for law. Last I checked, the Constitution was law - in fact it is the Supreme Law of the Land.

    Should it be interpreted under different rules than other laws are? Why?
    Use an example of Constitutional law that seems "fuzzy" to you.

    I think that there is a huge difference between the average law and the Supreme law of the land, unless you are Obama, then they are seem the same.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    28 Jun '16 23:37 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Use an example of Constitutional law that seems "fuzzy" to you.

    I think that there is a huge difference between the average law and the Supreme law of the land, unless you are Obama, then they are seem the same.
    Tell me what an "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is that warrants impeachment.

    Tell me who decides.

    Your usual Obama ranting is noted, but that question I asked remains on the table: Should it [the US Constitution] be interpreted under different rules than other laws are? Why?

    I'd add: And if so, what should those rules be?
  13. 28 Jun '16 23:40
    Can any of you lawbookers answer this? If fiat money is un constitutional, then would any law passed that pertains in any way to a fiat currency be valid?
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    28 Jun '16 23:44
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    Can any of you lawbookers answer this? If fiat money is un constitutional, then would any law passed that pertains in any way to a fiat currency be valid?
    Here's the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

    Show me where it bans the Federal Government from using "fiat currency".
  15. 28 Jun '16 23:52
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Here's the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

    Show me where it bans the Federal Government from using "fiat currency".
    I will look it up, but in general if there is something unconstitutional, will any law that pertains to it be invalid?