Originally posted by joe beyserIf the constitution wasn't flexible then we wouldn't have had some of the amendments such as giving the right to vote to women.
Does the idea of a living breathing ( flexible ) constitution put it on a slippery slope to oblivian?
How far down was this on that slippery slope?
I agree with Kazet that the constitution should be changeable, but it definitely should be more difficult to change than a regular law - as it is.
Originally posted by joe beyserI agree that it should be amended from time to time if necessary depending on what the people need. I did leave the thread somewhat vague and I appologize. I have been thinking lately that our freedoms are starting to suffer in the name of national security. Laws are being made to go around the constitution. I realize that the reps, and senate don't always have time to read the bills they are passing, but I hope if they have a constitutional convention they will give it some thought.
Does the idea of a living breathing ( flexible ) constitution put it on a slippery slope to oblivian?
I think some supreme court justices are not interpreting the constitution properly. I would prefer the constitution be amended rather than abused by certain supreme court justices.
Here is part of a 60 Minutes interview with Justice Scalia where he says torture is not punishment. Torture is punishment for not giving information they may or may not have, but Scalia does not see it that way.
********************************************************************************************
The justice has been explaining his positions publicly more and more, and even delving into some thorny issues, like torture.
"I don't like torture," Scalia says. "Although defining it is going to be a nice trick. But who's in favor of it? Nobody. And we have a law against torture. But if the - everything that is hateful and odious is not covered by some provision of the Constitution," he says.
"If someone's in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized by a law enforcement person, if you listen to the expression 'cruel and unusual punishment,' doesn't that apply?" Stahl asks.
"No, No," Scalia replies.
"Cruel and unusual punishment?" Stahl asks.
"To the contrary," Scalia says. "Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so."
"Well, I think if you are in custody, and you have a policeman who's taken you into custody…," Stahl says.
"And you say he's punishing you?" Scalia asks.
"Sure," Stahl replies.
"What's he punishing you for? You punish somebody…," Scalia says.
"Well because he assumes you, one, either committed a crime…or that you know something that he wants to know," Stahl says.
"It's the latter. And when he's hurting you in order to get information from you…you don’t say he's punishing you. What’s he punishing you for? He's trying to extract…," Scalia says.
"Because he thinks you are a terrorist and he's going to beat the you-know-what out of you…," Stahl replies.
"Anyway, that’s my view," Scalia says. "And it happens to be correct."
He's nothing if not certain and confident. How did he get that way?
*******************************************************************************************
You can read the entire interview on the link below.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040290_page4.shtml
I think Wickard v. Filburn is one of the worst SCOTUS decisions made. It was like communism infected our nation because it allowed Gov to tell farmers how much they could produce. It greatly expanded the reach of federalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Originally posted by joe beyserThe constitusion, like all else, is flawed. Just look at some of the things it is built on, such as equality and a democratic vote, are both self-destructive consepts. No one is entirely equal
Does the idea of a living breathing ( flexible ) constitution put it on a slippery slope to oblivian?
(thus making communism and socialism very flawed, but that's another topic), some are strong and intellegent, most...not so much. And alowing everyone to vote as if they are equals make the mojority of 'weaker' members of society construct the "living, breathing constitution" toward what they think is best by making ammendments that are wastful and pointless wastes of societies recorces. This is what causes a once workable document made by intellegent members of society slide down the "slippery slope to oblivian".......so, in theory, yes we're all doomed by the constitution we created to save ourselves.
I just read and watched the video of Scalia's interview. I can't believe that he is unaware of laws that exist now pertaining national security, a person is not guaranteed a lawyer or even a trial. In fact the govt can abduct anyone on suspision of terrorism and not have to give due process. With that said, it bothers me that by his viewpoint, a person can be tortured and it can't be considered punishment because they haven't been given a sentence. I am sure the founding fathers would have considered torture as cruel and unusual punishment and the fact that a person is not sentenced for a crime is no excuse. Thank you for the input as I was totally unaware of Scalias view. It apears that the lawmakers and judges need a course in common sense.
But you must also see the view points of others that are doing such things that you condem. They have used their own sense of morals, probably that defending the country comes first!, to back up their actions. Would you really want a suspected terrorist running around free? This is a classic example of a security and freedom issue. Those who trade freedom for security, deserve neither.
Originally posted by r2d2cheeseSo what's the alternative to universal suffrage? What criteria do you suggest should be used to establish who has the right to vote and who doesn't?
The constitusion, like all else, is flawed. Just look at some of the things it is built on, such as equality and a democratic vote, are both self-destructive consepts. No one is entirely equal
(thus making communism and socialism very flawed, but that's another topic), some are strong and intellegent, most...not so much. And alowing everyone to vote ...[text shortened]... ...so, in theory, yes we're all doomed by the constitution we created to save ourselves.
fOriginally posted by r2d2cheeseI do understand their side. I would rather have a real terrorist running the streets than have big brother start putting everyone they may consider a political enemy on their terror list. It sounds a little crazy now, but I see things heading that way. Government is necessary but a little distrust, I think is healthy. You were right on the mark when you said anyone willing to sacrifice freedom for security, deserve neither.
But you must also see the view points of others that are doing such things that you condem. They have used their own sense of morals, probably that defending the country comes first!, to back up their actions. Would you really want a suspected terrorist running around free? This is a classic example of a security and freedom issue. Those who trade freedom for security, deserve neither.
Originally posted by joe beyserYour welcome.
I just read and watched the video of Scalia's interview. I can't believe that he is unaware of laws that exist now pertaining national security, a person is not guaranteed a lawyer or even a trial. In fact the govt can abduct anyone on suspision of terrorism and not have to give due process. With that said, it bothers me that by his viewpoint, a person ...[text shortened]... ware of Scalias view. It apears that the lawmakers and judges need a course in common sense.
Yes, common sense would be helpful. I wonder if a supreme court justice has ever been impeached.
I was surprised to learn that FDR was trying to expand the number of supreme court justices. I think that is the only reason Wickard v. Filburn was decided the way it was. Once it was decided there was no reason to pursue the court packing plan. They got what they wanted, federalism was expanded. It is amazing how FDR was allowed to bully the supreme court into submission. I'm sure the corp. news media helped him with that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_packing
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou really should take a US history course. Wickard v. Filburn was decided long after the "court packing" plan was dead.
Your welcome.
Yes, common sense would be helpful. I wonder if a supreme court justice has ever been impeached.
I was surprised to learn that FDR was trying to expand the number of supreme court justices. I think that is the only reason Wickard v. Filburn was decided the way it was. Once it was decided there was no reason to pursue the court packing m sure the corp. news media helped him with that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_packing
EDIT: More than 5 years to be specific. Wickard came down on November 9, 1942 while (read your cited article), the "court packing" plan was dead in August 1937.
Originally posted by no1marauderOh hell yeah marauder every 5 year old knows about Wickard v. Filburn, it's so commonplace I can't believe you'd even bring it up.
You really should take a US history course. Wickard v. Filburn was decided long after the "court packing" plan was dead.
EDIT: More than 5 years to be specific. Wickard came down on November 9, 1942 while (read your cited article), the "court packing" plan was dead in August 1937.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou really should take a reading course.
You really should take a US history course. Wickard v. Filburn was decided long after the "court packing" plan was dead.
EDIT: More than 5 years to be specific. Wickard came down on November 9, 1942 while (read your cited article), the "court packing" plan was dead in August 1937.
He is an excerpt from the court packing link I provided. It did not matter that the bill failed. The fear lingered.
"Although the bill failed, the Supreme Court, fearing FDR's attempt to neutralize them, began declaring his New Deal laws constitutional. By 1942, the Supreme Court had virtually stopped striking down congressional laws passed by New Dealers."