Here's what Chief Justice John Marshall said regarding the Constitution almost 200 years ago in McCullough v. Maryland:
A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American Constitution is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. Why else were some of the limitations found in the 9th section of the 1st article introduced? It is also in some degree warranted by their having omitted to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation. In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding.
Emphasis in original.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaSee the John Marshall quote above esp:
"Should" is a charged word. It's simply something they couldn't have known at the time (for the reasons you already mentioned) that came to be important in the future .
A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not talking about subdivisions and the means by which these subdivisions be carried into execution.
Here's what Chief Justice John Marshall said regarding the Constitution almost 200 years ago in McCullough v. Maryland:
A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and ...[text shortened]... orget that it is [b]a Constitution we are expounding.
Emphasis in original.[/b]
Regardless, what John Marshall said 200 years ago is irrelevant. Your mind is ridiculously bounded by the historical views of characters that lived in a significantly different society. The only thing that is worth discussing is whether it makes sense today to include this in the constitution or not.
If it's something that might severely hamper the people's ability to decide elections (like your President claims) then it might be worth considering it.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaMy mind takes wisdom from where I find it. Marshall's point about what should be included in a Constitution remains well argued, even if you choose to dismiss it because he wrote it 200 years ago.
I'm not talking about subdivisions and the means by which these subdivisions be carried into execution.
Regardless, what John Marshall said 200 years ago is irrelevant. Your mind is ridiculously bounded by the historical views of characters that lived in a significantly different society. The only thing that is worth discussing is whether it makes sense [ ility to decide elections (like your President claims) then it might be worth considering it.
In truth, the Framers made it very hard to amend the Constitution (rightfully so). No matter how "important" Obama thinks this issue is, the chance of it being decided by way of a Constitutional amendment is zero.
EDIT: I like Buddha's and Lao-Tzu's stuff, too. Sue me.
Originally posted by no1marauderOk, I misread what you meant with your quote. So discard my second paragraph and keep the first one. Marshall's point is about subdivisions of government and there I agree entirely. But this issue is about the ability of American citizens to elect their federal government.
My mind takes wisdom from where I find it. Marshall's point about what should be included in a Constitution remains well argued, even if you choose to dismiss it because he wrote it 200 years ago.
In truth, the Framers made it very hard to amend the Constitution (rightfully so). No matter how "important" Obama thinks this issue is, the chance of it being decided by way of a Constitutional amendment is zero.
I also agree that it should be very hard to amend the Constitution and Obama would require pretty much consensus, which he won't get. But pragmatical issues such as that are not material to the discussion about what one would like to see there.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32471
Originally posted by monster truckAnd you think corporations are not collectives? Enjoy the work camp in your future, enemies of freedom.
Nope.
And neither am I willing to accept any form of censorship.
"The Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from
single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unin-corporated associations of individuals, to incorporatedassociations of individuals—and the ...[text shortened]... ance towards dependency on a centralized Big Gov to make so many decisions for the individual.
Originally posted by PalynkaMarshall's language is a bit archaic. The issue in the case was whether Congress could create a national bank. The Constitution doesn't explicitly say it can (if it had there wouldn't have been an argument) but Marshall inferred from several provisions which granted broader powers that this was a legitimate exercise of federal power. The point he was making is that one shouldn't expect in a Constitution a catalogue of specific means delimiting the way the legislature can exercise enumerated powers; that would be unwieldy and rigid.
Ok, I misread what you meant with your quote. So discard my second paragraph and keep the first one. Marshall's point is about subdivisions of government and there I agree entirely. But this issue is about the ability of American citizens to elect their federal government.
I also agree that it should be very hard to amend the Constitution and Obama would ...[text shortened]... issues such as that are not material to the discussion about what one would like to see there.
2 edits
Originally posted by TerrierJackCzar Henny Penny has spoken.
Support your local overlords!
http://murrayhillweb.com/pr-012510.html
Watch your freedom drain away. “We bought it, we paid for it, and we’re going to keep it.”
From the SCOTUS blog-
what Justice Alito found “not right” was Obama’s statement that the ruling “reversed over a century of law” – a charge commonly made in the media – when in fact the early twentieth-century law banning direct political contributions by corporations was not at issue in Citizens. Elsewhere, the New York Times briefly mentions another inaccuracy in the president’s remarks about the Court’s ruling.
Originally posted by utherpendragonLooks like Obama is human after all.
In a truly unprecedented display of incivility, Obama in his speech explicitly criticized a particular, recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, and then called on the Congress to pass legislation overturning the decision. He did this with the nine justices of the Court sitting directly in front of him. Not only did the president d ...[text shortened]... t would be deliberately passing legislation that already had been declared unconstitutional![/b]
Did you at any point think he was infallible?
Originally posted by utherpendragonIt is ridiculous from the Supreme Court to justify their actions in favour of influential and rich lobbyist groups using the Freedom of Speech ... man, I hope the Supreme Court of Justice isn't turning into some fundamentalist Freedom of Speech sect.
In a truly unprecedented display of incivility, Obama in his speech explicitly criticized a particular, recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, and then called on the Congress to pass legislation overturning the decision. He did this with the nine justices of the Court sitting directly in front of him. Not only did the president d ...[text shortened]... t would be deliberately passing legislation that already had been declared unconstitutional![/b]
I support Obama in this.
Originally posted by FMFNo, he's right. I watched the speach twice. The minute foeign special interests popped out of his mouth, is when the Justice voiced that's not true.. watch the speecH yourself,,, oh of couse some right wing idiot probably dubbed the whole thing just to confuse us.
Your post is an unattributed cut and paste from a right wing blog. Just give us the link if you can't be bothered to debate off your own bat.
Oh right
Originally posted by Hugh GlassAnd here's what a well recognized, nonpartisan "factchecker" has to say on the subject.
No, he's right. I watched the speach twice. The minute foeign special interests popped out of his mouth, is when the Justice voiced that's not true.. watch the speecH yourself,,, oh of couse some right wing idiot probably dubbed the whole thing just to confuse us.
Oh right
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/obamas-state-of-the-union-address/
Justice Samuel Alito, who with the other justices sat at the very front of the chamber last night, was seen shaking his head and mouthing what appeared to be the words "not true" as Obama said this. Alito joined the majority in the 5-4 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision issued by the Court last week, which knocked down restrictions on corporate spending on elections.
But it’s unclear whether the court’s opinion will lead to allowing foreign-based corporations to buy campaign ads and engage in other electioneering activities. There is still a law barring foreign corporations from spending money in connection with U.S. elections (see 2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3)), and that’s a matter likely to be litigated further. The court’s most recent decision explicitly didn’t deal with that question. But strictly speaking, Obama couched his claim as something "I believe," making it a statement of opinion and not of fact. So whether his view turns out to be right remains to be seen.