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

[RedKing]

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.

The problem is that too much rigidity in the Constitution would make it impossible to update. That is the purpose of the Supreme Court (and the judiciary in general) -- to be the human element that interprets the Constitution. Putting hard rules on the SC defeats the point of having a Court in the first place.

[SalmonGod]

Since I work in customs brokerage and international trade, I'm seeing effects from the shutdown already.

65% of FDA staff in Chicago furloughed this morning
97% of EPA staff

A couple customs-operated websites already shut down

Slowdowns across the board.  Entry reviews backing up.  Some licenses unobtainable.  Lots of stuff unable to be released into the country.

So U.S. import operations are already suffering pretty significantly on Day 1

[RedKing]

Even though I'm not there anymore, ATF is pretty much business as normal. DoJ gets large exemptions during shutdowns because of the whole "public safety" thing.

Which I actually think is part of the problem. They're not scared to shut down the government because they're not REALLY shutting down the government. If they said, "Okay. As of midnight, our military and Federal law enforcement goes offline. Good luck, states, you're gonna need it," then I think there would be a fuckton more pressure on Congress not to do this.

[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.

The problem is that too much rigidity in the Constitution would make it impossible to update. That is the purpose of the Supreme Court (and the judiciary in general) -- to be the human element that interprets the Constitution. Putting hard rules on the SC defeats the point of having a Court in the first place.

Not exactly. The supreme court's job is to evaluate new legislation, and the findings of lesser courts, to determine if constitutional law has been violated or not, or if a piece of legislation is actually actionable or not.

The get the final say on the matter.

They can accomplish that task with hard rules, and such hard rules would actually facilitate that goal.

If the world outgrows an outdated stricture of the written constitution, there is an available process to change it to include those updates. It is called a constitutional amendment.

The "whatever we feel like it says, with shit all regard to previous rulings if we find them disfavorable" method is not needed, and is deleterious. It is only useful to people who don't like oversight, nor understand why it is necessary.

[SalmonGod]

Only sith deal in absolutes.

[wierd]

Actually, it was created this way on purpose, as the US was intended to be a "nation of law", and not a "nation of men".

This grew directly out of legislation at the bench by the US court's antecedent, the english common law court system. In order to have consistent and reliable justice, consistent and reliable verdicts based only on the law must be made. Because of the risk that this poses, in regard to officious and intractible legislation, an "out" was provided in the form of the jury, and its powers, including nullification.

The US is a nation of law. Not a nation of men.

Further reading, for those interested.

[Sheb]

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)

San Marino would like a word with you.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

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)

San Marino would like a word with you.

While an interesting precursor, San Marino lacks a written constitution. The Statutes of 1600 are apparently often confused with that. It's only got an informal constitution, which I'm guessing is in the same style as the UK's.

[Loud Whispers]

Only sith deal in absolutes.

Obama wields his lightsaber like Count Dooku.
Coincidence? I think not.

[Helgoland]

The US is a nation of law. Not a nation of men.

There's a saying that I think goes something like this: "Any idea, when applied in a sufficiently thorough manner, will yield inhumane results, because an idea lacks the human element."
If you have a nation of law, any law can be justified, and there's nothing to stop it - I won't mention the obvious example.
If you have a nation of men, you get the Right to Revolution.

That's why I have a soft spot for the German constitution. It basically says that the one law that is untouchable is article one:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Artikel 1
(1) Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar. Sie zu achten und zu schützen ist Verpflichtung aller staatlichen Gewalt.

(2) Das Deutsche Volk bekennt sich darum zu unverletzlichen und unveräußerlichen Menschenrechten als Grundlage jeder menschlichen Gemeinschaft, des Friedens und der Gerechtigkeit in der Welt.

(3) Die nachfolgenden Grundrechte binden Gesetzgebung, vollziehende Gewalt und Rechtsprechung als unmittelbar geltendes Recht.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(1) Human dignity is surpreme. All of the government's power is to be used to protect it.
(2) The German people acknowledge that right as the foundation of all human societies, of peace and of justice in this world.
(3) The following rights (articles 2, 3 etc ) tie down the legislative, the executive and the judicative as immediately effective law.

[Flying Dice]

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)

San Marino would like a word with you.

While an interesting precursor, San Marino lacks a written constitution. The Statutes of 1600 are apparently often confused with that. It's only got an informal constitution, which I'm guessing is in the same style as the UK's.

You would have done better to consult a dictionary. A constitution is not defined by its status as a written document, but by the existence of the set of principles of governance from which it is composed. Put simply, a constitution may be written and codified, but it does not have to be. That assumption tends to arise in no small part because of the percieved preeminence of the U.S. constitution, which is written and codified.

[Darvi]

It is not, however, a document, which MSH explicitly talked about.

[misko27]

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.

The problem is that too much rigidity in the Constitution would make it impossible to update. That is the purpose of the Supreme Court (and the judiciary in general) -- to be the human element that interprets the Constitution. Putting hard rules on the SC defeats the point of having a Court in the first place.

Not exactly. The supreme court's job is to evaluate new legislation, and the findings of lesser courts, to determine if constitutional law has been violated or not, or if a piece of legislation is actually actionable or not.

The get the final say on the matter.

They can accomplish that task with hard rules, and such hard rules would actually facilitate that goal.

If the world outgrows an outdated stricture of the written constitution, there is an available process to change it to include those updates. It is called a constitutional amendment.

The "whatever we feel like it says, with shit all regard to previous rulings if we find them disfavorable" method is not needed, and is deleterious. It is only useful to people who don't like oversight, nor understand why it is necessary.

But Hard rules, rules age. If rules age badly, they need to be updated. And then the question of who updates. Recall the Voting Rights act was struck down because it still used the same mapping system as it did when it wasa founded, and both sides recognized any attempt to change it is a political flame war. Congress is, right now, perfectly allowed to reinstate the Voting rights act and there ain't a damned thing SCOTUS could do, in fact that is what the decision called for. It's because Congress is paralyzed that it has assumed so much power.

For all the checks and balances, if Congress really organized into a single cohesive power bloc, it'd be unstoppable. When it is divided, it's  like either of the other branches. When it is spasming as it is, the others take up the slack, simply because Congress won't stop them.

Anyway, it impresses me that people really think anyone other then John Boehner and the Tea-Party are ultimately at fault, because if a clean CR bill went to a straight up-or-down vote, it's widely assumed enough republicans would support it (around 120 or so) to end the crisis. I mean hell, I am seeing a lot of statements going "Well I hate Obamacare, but it's the law. If the voters support us removing it, they'll vote us into power" floating around. If you want to see some of the quotes, I can supply them, I can give you maybe 6 off the top of my head.

On Obamacare: Really, tell me, how many people understand Obamacare? I mean, look it over, read some summaries, take a gander at the Wikipedia article on it, and decide then? The Onion pointed out in a recent article "Man who understands 8% of Obamacare vigorously defends it from Man who knows 5% of it", and "Opinion of Dad on Obamacare", subtitle: "It's bullshit". It's essentially a complete enigma to most, and so Political alignment dictates support. Obamacare=Obama to many; if you support him you support it, if you hate him you hate it, if you don't care about him you don't care about it, etc.

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.

Oh come now, it may be polarized in it's own, unique way, but there are a lot of other countries in worse straits (Greece's Neo-Nazi party would like a word for example, and the protest party in Italy controlling 1/5 of the seats, which simply refuses to participate at all, comes to mind). The Problem is none of them can single-handedly take down the world economy.

So, in the News, Today is the first day ACA exchanges open up, showing amazing dramatic timing. Glitches have been popping up; because of the high traffic (lol), they are putting a bad hue on the event, and giving Republicans ammo, however small, to throw. The glitches are because of the breathtaking complexity of the operations, and some of the non-cooperativeness. (I actually would support a small delay; however, since the issue is extremely politicized, nothing will be done.)

In other news, Protesters interrupt a Republican press conference; Obama takes to the waves to blast the shutdown, ending a week of silence on the issue (he is considered to be largely a spectator, having had only one conversation with the republican leadership the entire crisis. It's all Congress doing it.); Fox News is referring to the Shutdown as a "Slimdown" (which, if you think about Libertarians, actually sounds attractive to some); Right-wing bloggers are downplaying effects of Shutdown; and Financial Markets have so far remained stable, apparently reflecting a belief that the shutdown will be brief.

[Greiger]

So how long does this go on until the American people are legally allowed to revolt and fire every single one of these assholes who can't do their fucking jobs?

[Flying Dice]

It is not, however, a document, which MSH explicitly talked about.

The constitution was originally not written, but was later in part written (the Statutes), though it was not at the time formally codified in the same sense that the US constitution is.