The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[The Juan Percenter]

Can Sweden approve me to tap one of their bikini models? Like, real fast. My wife and kids come home tomorrow morning.

[nietoperz]

I keep saying it: nobody here knows anything at all about the Swedish Bikini Team. They're a Budweiser invention, apparently.

[The Juan Percenter]

Hey Spiderrob, did you start this thread because you confused Sweden Phone Tapping with Z-100 Phone Tapping???

[The Juan Percenter]

I keep saying it: nobody here knows anything at all about the Swedish Bikini Team. They're a Budweiser invention, apparently.

Well, Bah-humbug to you too sir

[nietoperz]

Well, Bah-humbug to you too sir

The thing is, though - Swedish women on the whole are WAY more attractive than those bikini team girls.

[Spidey-Man]

Hey Spiderrob, did you start this thread because you confused Sweden Phone Tapping with Z-100 Phone Tapping???

I don't believe I started the thread.

[habitual]

Of course you did. Most law school professors, as I know from direct experience, are left wing. Most of the "hijacking" has been done by left wingers.

The interstate commerce clause has been stretched beyond all recognition.

The Constitution was also rewritten to provide a right to an abortion.

It was also rewritten to apply the bill of rights to the states through the 14th amendment which doesn't say that.

Basically, take much of con law since the Supreme Court, in panic over Roosevelt's attempt at court packing, suddenly switched and found constitutional the New Deal programs through the present.

All by twisting the constitution beyond all recognition.

When i was a child, I was told a fairy tale by my teachers.

"The Constitutution is such an important document. And look how well they made it. It only need 26 (at the time) amendments in 220 years. and the first 10 were done right away. That shows how well crafted it was."

Reality is its been amended dozens, if not hundreds of times by the Courts.

and many of those "amendments" i support. But not done without any foundation in the constitution.

That's the strength of the document, not it's weakness.

It's called a system of checks and balances for a reason.

It's fascinating to me that much of the GOP mantra when it has to do with the courts has taken on an almost a revivalism akin to what goes on in most religions where it reimagines an earlier time to fit it's current philosophical needs.

Hab

[Spidey-Man]

No, it's a weakness in the system that the Federal courts have amended the document when they have no role in doing so.

they basically say "Hmm, I think it should be like this, so I will pretend it says this when it doesn't."

That's not right. Today, the courts would read in a protection of women's right to vote. No amendment needed. But that wouldn't be correct. That would be the Supreme Court doing what 9 (or even 5) unelected judges thought was "fair" having nothing to do with the document itself.

That's not "checks and balances." that's an improper usurptation of power, a body out of control.

No different than an executive out of control, except the president doesn't serve for life.

The Court did not start doing this until the 1930s.

Doesn't mean every decision I disagree with is this. But many times, the court tortures the document to invent things out of thin air.

[habitual]

No, it's a weakness in the system that the Federal courts have amended the document when they have no role in doing so.

they basically say "Hmm, I think it should be like this, so I will pretend it says this when it doesn't."

That's not right. Today, the courts would read in a protection of women's right to vote. No amendment needed. But that wouldn't be correct. That would be the Supreme Court doing what 9 (or even 5) unelected judges thought was "fair" having nothing to do with the document itself.

That's not "checks and balances." that's an improper usurptation of power, a body out of control.

No different than an executive out of control, except the president doesn't serve for life.

Hearsay and opinion.

The courts have been more prevalent today, due, to nothing more than partisan gridlock. It has nothing to do with a power grab.

Hab

[Spidey-Man]

Hearsay?

Of course it's opinion. Everything is opinion. Considering the fact that Roe v. Wade, for example, legally, is some pretty crappy law, even if you agree that abortion should be legal, I think I am correct.

[kingbobb]

Many of the founders did think the Bill of Rights should be included in the original document, specifically because they felt without such a list of enumerated protections, the government they were creating would, at some time, be used to trample the rights of the people that were expressly reserved. The fact they were retified 4 years after the Consitution is mostly irrelevant. It's false to say that the founders were so enraptured with the Constitution that they felt it didn't need the Bill of Rights protections included. The Bill of Rights exists as part of the deal to get the Consitution ratified, because many founders felt the original document was sorely lacking in working to protect the individual from the large government they were forming.

Law professors: I had plenty that were strongly right wing. Our property professor was so conservative that he directly lead an Native American student to leave the school because the professor was completely unwilling to even allow discussion about non-ownership concepts of property to be discussed.

[habitual]

Hearsay?

Of course it's opinion. Everything is opinion. Considering the fact that Roe v. Wade, for example, legally, is some pretty crappy law, even if you agree that abortion should be legal, I think I am correct.

The real question is though is the court acting any differently or is it being interpreted differently due to legislative and executive impotence.

Hab

[Spidey-Man]

Many of the founders did think the Bill of Rights should be included in the original document, specifically because they felt without such a list of enumerated protections, the government they were creating would, at some time, be used to trample the rights of the people that were expressly reserved. The fact they were retified 4 years after the Consitution is mostly irrelevant. It's false to say that the founders were so enraptured with the Constitution that they felt it didn't need the Bill of Rights protections included. The Bill of Rights exists as part of the deal to get the Consitution ratified, because many founders felt the original document was sorely lacking in working to protect the individual from the large government they were forming. .

Drafters of the Constitution I should say. Not founders. My bad.

[Spidey-Man]

The real question is though is the court acting any differently or is it being interpreted differently due to legislative and executive impotence.

Hab

I'm not talking about recent things. I am talking what I feel has been the course since the 30s.

I think we've exhausted this though, considering it's friday afternoon

[kingbobb]

Of course you did. Most law school professors, as I know from direct experience, are left wing. Most of the "hijacking" has been done by left wingers.

The interstate commerce clause has been stretched beyond all recognition.

By who'e estimation? From an economic view point, there's very little that does not impact interstate commerce. Our markets are becoming so intertwined that the idea of a completely local market is nearly extinct. With the advent of the internet and near real-time communication, nearly every market in the world is just a few clicks away. It's not the idea of the commerce clause that's been stretched, it's the reach of markets from far away being able to reach customers on the other side of the world, let alone different states.

The Constitution was also rewritten to provide a right to an abortion.

No, it was decided that the laws attempting to regulate abortion overstepped the right to privacy inherant in the Bill of Rights. Roe v. Wade, which I agree with you is a very poorly written case in which the logic does not support the conclusion, all but provides states with the roadmap they need to regulate abortion. So far from saying there is a right to abortion, RvW says there is in fact no right to abortion, and if the states were smart enough, they'd be able to regulate abortion fairly heavily.

It was also rewritten to apply the bill of rights to the states through the 14th amendment which doesn't say that.

This is what the 14th Amendment does say

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The protections of the Bill of Rights applies to US citizens. I don't think you need a court action to apply the Bill of Rights to state actions...the 14th Amendment seems to do that pretty well on it's own.

Basically, take much of con law since the Supreme Court, in panic over Roosevelt's attempt at court packing, suddenly switched and found constitutional the New Deal programs through the present.

All by twisting the constitution beyond all recognition.

When i was a child, I was told a fairy tale by my teachers.

"The Constitutution is such an important document. And look how well they made it. It only need 26 (at the time) amendments in 220 years. and the first 10 were done right away. That shows how well crafted it was."

Reality is its been amended dozens, if not hundreds of times by the Courts.

and many of those "amendments" i support. But not done without any foundation in the constitution.

They aren't amendments. They are applications of the Constitution to specific instances, just as courts do every day with laws, regulations, and Constitutional clauses. It's what courts do. And I'd much rather some judge sitting for live...never having to worry about winning votes or needing campaign money from some special interest group...making those decisions than the folks who do need to pander in order to keep working.

But the Constitution itself hasn't been amended. It's just not the kind of document that is designed to regulate specific things.