Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[GreatJustice]

Apparently some WWII vets broke the rules by visiting an open air memorial when the government is supposed to be "shut down", because they're actively supposed to prevent people from visiting.

Washington Monument Syndrome doesn't even begin to describe the farce that this is developing into.

[RedKing]

Apparently some WWII vets broke the rules by visiting an open air memorial when the government is supposed to be "shut down", because they're actively supposed to prevent people from visiting.

Washington Monument Syndrome doesn't even begin to describe the farce that this is developing into.

And as I read it, the police didn't really do anything to stop them. So much for that Obama police state, eh?

@wierd: I'm familiar with that line of thinking. I just don't agree. Past a certain point, de jure violations of law become de facto customary law.

[SealyStar]

"Sixteen days until the end comes" - wait, what are we counting down, and why Latin?

[FearfulJesuit]

"Sixteen days until the end comes" - wait, what are we counting down, and why Latin?

We are counting down the days until the US defaults on its debt if Congress can't get its head out of its ass and keep the world economy from crashing. Latin, because apocalypse.

[aenri]

The issue is that the authority to govern comes from the powers presented by the constitution, and the powers the government has exercised to establish those laws is not founded on the powers it was provided. That makes the foundation of the law itself unsound.  The Supreme court has unfortunately upheld the ACA and other such unfounded pieces of legislation, but they have also upended many intrinsic checks and balances in thier side of government as well, by doing such nasty things as making jury nullification no longer a right, but just a power. (A power you are not legally allowed to employ I might add.)  and other such shenanigans. The term "Regulatory capture" comes to mind.

Simply because the pimply butted assholes in the fancy chairs on capitol hill say something is legal and substantiated, does not mean that it actually is. (See for instance, the drama over FISA courts, the NSA, and the people who actually wrote the patriot act.)

Because the constitution was never amended to permit that set of powers being weilded by the government, there is no legal foundation for them to produce that law, making the act of passing it illegal. I dont care what the law is about, they dont have the power to regulate domestic issues like that. That power is reserved to the individual citizens and to the individual states, as the citizens choose to allot to the states-- as written.

If they pass a constitutional amendment saying that they can be little dictators, and get the 2/3 majority signature, then what they do after that point is perfectly legal.  Until they do so, it is not.

The thing is, there is formal Constitution and material constitution. Formal one is easy - its the Constitution and amendments. Material constitution of a country consists of much more than just a formal constitution, it consists of other acts of constitutional law (such as voting acts), decisions of the Supreme Court, legal principles and also natural law.

This means that the words of constitution can have their meaning shifted and changed with the progress of time. The very power of Supreme Court to determine constitutionality of act of governement is such thing. The meaning of judicial review was pretty much expanded to also include review of constitutionality of acts, even if the Constitution itself didnt change.

You could say the Supreme Court created such power for itself because it wasnt directly written in Constitution. But that would be wrong, because such power was implied as the SC reasoned. There is no need to have everything explicitly written in Constitution, and frankly it would be impossible. You have Supreme Court for determining what is still inside Constitution clauses and what is unconstitutional.

[Dutchling]

I've never understood America's obsession with it's constitution.

[SealyStar]

I've never understood America's obsession with it's constitution.

Because it's [theoretically, not so much in practice] the most important legal document in the country, which every other law [is supposed to] be less important than?

That's like saying "I never understood my computer's obsession with binary", or "I never understood writers' obsession with literacy".

[Darvi]

You don't see non-Americans have that attitude with their constitutions, though.

[aenri]

I've never understood America's obsession with it's constitution.

Because it's [theoretically, not so much in practice] the most important legal document in the country, which every other law [is supposed to] be less important than?

That's like saying "I never understood my computer's obsession with binary", or "I never understood writers' obsession with literacy".

It is the most important legal act for every country that has one. Just USA has pretty much, for a lack of a better word fetishistic tendencies with it.

[bulborbish]

I've never understood America's obsession with it's constitution.

A significant portion of the population see it as one of the many things that embodies the "American Way" which we've lost from the good old days. This then translates to the media, and then to the rest of the population.

Personally, I'm somewhat cynical of the Constitution and wish that we just rewrote and clarified a bunch of the stuff in it (especially in the second amendment, because of how vague it it). Unfortunately, it's a Sacred Cow so that will never happen.

[RedKing]

"Sixteen days until the end comes" - wait, what are we counting down, and why Latin?

It helps if you have O Fortuna playing while you read the thread.

[Darvi]

Personally I think it's because the US is so polarized like no other nation, and each side trying to manipulate the law into their favour means a lot of opposition from the other side, and thus the need for some rules for what they can and can't do, i.e. the constitution. Unfortunately, both sides are also arseholes.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I've never understood America's obsession with it's constitution.

Our Constitution was both the first document of its kind (yes, while based upon ideas in earlier documents, the United States was the world's first constitutional republic, hence the name) and the ultimate defining reason for America's existence. Part of the difference between New World Nationality and Old World Nationality. There would still be a France even if it's government ceased to be, because France's existence is ultimately based in the physical ethnic identity of the French. Without the Constitution, there is no America. It is the contract that creates the Union.

[Darvi]

That's silly. It's not like the entire continent would sink under the sea just because... Actually I'm just gonna shut up before I jinx it.

[wierd]

Quite right.

My issue is not so much that something is or isn't in the constitution, it is the "whatever we say it says at the moment" doublespeak of the SC's influence, and the impact that has. The SC needs hard rules to constrain it. Presumably, the source of such rules is the written constitution. When the "whatever we say it means at this particular moment" crowd are given equal weight to the enabling framework legislation, then you have tyrrany on the bench.