Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 53

Thread: Constitutional or not?

  1. #1

    Default Constitutional or not?

    Ok Ive been thinking of how to do a thread like this and this one" You are put in control of your country"

    Especially this post and some of the replies to it.

    Sétanta
    What I do:
    - Withdraw the United States from the UN and NATO
    - Build a wall across the Mexican border and deport all the illegal immigrants (all of them)
    - Abolish the Departments of Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development
    - Get rid of social security and any other welfare program
    - National Service. Two years of service in either Military, Peace Corps, Public Works Corps, or some other group in order to get your right to vote
    - Make it so that you have to be born to American citizens to get citizenship.
    - Abolish FEMA
    - Renew PATRIOT Act
    - Make it impossible for any foreign nation, group or body to extradite an American citizen for any reason
    - Legalize Marijuana, keep other hard drugs very illegal
    - Give the US Interstate system a no speed limit policy
    - Drinking age of 18
    - Term limit for Senators
    - Get rid of the Circut Court's. State Supreme Courts are the next highest court level other than SCOTUS
    - Keep as much of the economy as possible in private hands. Regulation to keep people safe, but other than that, nothing.

    If I was elected I'd step down in 4 or 8 years, depending. If not, then I'd keep Presidency for as long as I needed.
    Lets suppose that we have elected President Sétanta and that congress has passed all his measures. Are there any here that you think should be brought up for judicial review? If so can the administration and its backers defend the constitutionality of these changes?
    I have nothing against the womens movement. Especially when Im walking behind it.


  2. #2
    El Brujo's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Texas. The greatest state in the C.S. of A.
    Posts
    1,815

    Default Re: Constitutional or not?

    I thought you opposed the idea of judicial review. These measures shouldn't be reviewed anyway, it's the stuff he's getting rid of that is unconstitutional.

    *Edit* On second thought, I'm pretty sure the national service idea would be pretty hard to get away with. Not enough support and too much opposition from from all sides.
    Last edited by El Brujo; September 29, 2007 at 01:44 PM.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Constitutional or not?

    I thought you opposed the idea of judicial review.
    That I do. This is an experiment.

    These measures shouldn't be reviewed anyway, it's the stuff he's getting rid of that is unconstitutional.
    Most of what he wants to get rid of is unconstitutional in the first place .Hence it seems this is in very need of review here. Already we are polar opposites.

    *Edit* On second thought, I'm pretty sure the national service idea would be pretty hard to get away with. Not enough support and too much opposition from from all sides.
    I support it. Its a great way to both contribute to your nation and get out in the world. As long as military service is not required it seems ok to me. Whether or not it would be constitutional is another matter.
    I have nothing against the womens movement. Especially when Im walking behind it.


  4. #4
    El Brujo's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Texas. The greatest state in the C.S. of A.
    Posts
    1,815

    Default Re: Constitutional or not?

    Most of what he wants to get rid of is unconstitutional in the first place .Hence it seems this is in very need of review here. Already we are polar opposites.
    I think we are actually in agreement here, sorry if my post wasn't clear. I was saying the laws we have now are unconstitutional and I would support President Sétanta's efforts to overturn them.

    I support it. Its a great way to both contribute to your nation and get out in the world. As long as military service is not required it seems ok to me. Whether or not it would be constitutional is another matter.
    What you support is irrelevant to the question, which is can you get away with it. If you could show me the part of the constitution that explicitly gives the federal government the right to do this, then I'm all for it . I don't believe it is mentioned however, which means it would take an amendment to the constitution, or states could implement such a policy on their own. And keep in mind your that your own demographic (crusty old white veterans) will probably be one of the the few which will take Sétanta's side on this issue.
    Last edited by El Brujo; September 29, 2007 at 02:31 PM.

  5. #5
    Duke_of_Bavaria's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Valhalla, Svea Rike
    Posts
    2,999

    Default Re: Constitutional or not?

    I'd become a rebel, sounds like a ****** nation to live in.

    Kustjägarsoldat, A-dyk #31 Nordenskiöld - KJ för alltid!



  6. #6

    Default Re: Constitutional or not?

    What you support is irrelevant to the question, which is can you get away with it. If you could show me the part of the constitution that explicitly gives the federal government the right to do this, then I'm all for it .
    Then we agree so in reality there is no argument.
    I have nothing against the womens movement. Especially when Im walking behind it.


  7. #7
    Sidmen's Avatar Mangod of Earth
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    15,862

    Default Re: Constitutional or not?

    - Make it so that you have to be born to American citizens to get citizenship.
    - Term limit for Senators
    These 2 are set in the constitution, so his attempted changes would be thrown out unless an ammendment to the constitution was passed. Everything else wouldn't be against the constitution..

    I'd move to iceland it he got his way tho...
    "For the humble doily is indeed the gateway to ULTIMATE COSMIC POWER!"

    ~Sidmen, Member of the House of Wilpuri, Patronized by pannonian

  8. #8

    Default Re: Constitutional or not?

    - Make it so that you have to be born to American citizens to get citizenship.
    - Term limit for Senators
    These 2 are set in the constitution, so his attempted changes would be thrown out unless an ammendment to the constitution was passed. Everything else wouldn't be against the constitution..
    Your parents can be illegal aliens and if your born here your an american the way it is now.

    Lets see which ones I think are debatable.

    National Service. Two years of service in either Military, Peace Corps, Public Works Corps, or some other group in order to get your right to vote
    - Legalize Marijuana, keep other hard drugs very illegal
    I have nothing against the womens movement. Especially when Im walking behind it.


  9. #9
    Sidmen's Avatar Mangod of Earth
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    15,862

    Default Re: Constitutional or not?

    I kinda agree with both... Realy the only 2 in the bunch that I agree with.
    "For the humble doily is indeed the gateway to ULTIMATE COSMIC POWER!"

    ~Sidmen, Member of the House of Wilpuri, Patronized by pannonian

  10. #10
    Ramashan's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    4,991

    Default Re: Constitutional or not?

    I'm just curious Rush. What do you have against Judicial review? Isn't that written into the Constitution?

    Article III, section 2: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority
    Under the Patronage of Lord Condormanius

  11. #11

    Default Re: Constitutional or not?

    I'm just curious Rush. What do you have against Judicial review? Isn't that written into the Constitution?
    No it is not and thats my gripe. It destroys the system of checks and balances and makes SCOTUS the supreme law of the land.
    I have nothing against the womens movement. Especially when Im walking behind it.


  12. #12
    Ramashan's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    4,991

    Default Re: Constitutional or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh View Post
    No it is not and thats my gripe. It destroys the system of checks and balances and makes SCOTUS the supreme law of the land.
    But its written right there. 'The Laws of the United States'. And if not Scotus, then who determines whether or not laws are Constitutional or not?

    Or do we just wait until someone in the public sector decides to challenge the law and fight it up to SCOTUS?

    I know this is slightly off topic, but I just wanted to settle this question before I made my on topic posts.
    Under the Patronage of Lord Condormanius

  13. #13

    Default Re: Constitutional or not?

    But its written right there.
    No its not. Show me where it says that.

    then who determines whether or not laws are Constitutional or not?
    If congress passes a law and the president signs it then its constitutional. SCOTUS does have the power of Judicial review but only over laws passed by the states according to the constitution. How could they be an equal branch if they could declare anything passed by the other branches unconstitutional?
    I have nothing against the womens movement. Especially when Im walking behind it.


  14. #14
    Ramashan's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    4,991

    Default Re: Constitutional or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh View Post
    No its not. Show me where it says that.



    If congress passes a law and the president signs it then its constitutional. SCOTUS does have the power of Judicial review but only over laws passed by the states according to the constitution. How could they be an equal branch if they could declare anything passed by the other branches unconstitutional?
    Point taken. However, I still believe that Article III, section 2 does give SCOTUS the right to Judicial Review and that it something is necessary to have in place. I believe this more because I can forsee a partison congress and a partison president passing a law that may not be 'constitutional' because they simply had the votes to do so.

    OK, now onto the topic.

    Wether I agree with most of the things Setanta would pass, most are within his Constitutional right to do. Except for:

    National Service to Vote: No where in the Constitution does it say you must serve the state in order to have the right to vote.

    Renew the Patriot Act: For someone who wants to go back to the basic ideals of the Constitution why would you then want to open an act that makes it easier for the to enter the personal lives of its citizens. Wasn't that one of the things the FF wanted to limit when writing the Constitution?

    US National Highway System a no speed limit policy: Isn't this a state right thing?

    Drinking age 18 I think this should be a State's dicision.
    Under the Patronage of Lord Condormanius

  15. #15

    Default Re: Constitutional or not?

    I believe this more because I can forsee a partison congress and a partison president passing a law that may not be 'constitutional' because they simply had the votes to do so.
    And you cant forsee a partisan SCOTUS declaring one unconstitutional? Its already been done. At least you have redress if congress or the president do this and elect somebody lese and have them change the law. SCOTUS does not answer to anyone. Their in 4 life.

    I still believe that Article III, section 2 does give SCOTUS the right to Judicial Review
    Accountability for Judicial Activism Act Introduced in House


    The right of judicial review is a practice with origins from the bench itself, established by the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision, and is not expressly provided for in the Constitution. Many argue that the exercise of such broad judicial authority, expanded over time and by political tradition, has a growing adverse affect on co-equal branches of government. Lewis cites the exceptions and regulations clause of the Constitution as grounds for Congress to re-assert its oversight role.
    Section 2.

    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
    Where does this say they have the power of Judicial review?
    Last edited by Rush Limbaugh; September 30, 2007 at 02:41 PM.
    I have nothing against the womens movement. Especially when Im walking behind it.


  16. #16
    Ramashan's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    4,991

    Default Re: Constitutional or not?

    Granted it is debatable, but the line:
    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,...
    Gives SCOTUS the right to review constitutional law. I guess it comes down to whether or not SCOTUS 'needs' to review every law before it goes to into affect.

    But, the more I think about it, the more I come to understand that laws must be brought to SCOTUS and that they don't simply get to pick the laws they chose to review. But, if there is a question of Constitutionality, then SCOTUS is the branch that makes the final decision. I may be confusing my belief that SCOTUS are the ones to determine the Constitutionality of a law with a belief that SCOTUS should review every law before it becomes law.

    My issue with SCOTUS is that they are appointed by the other branches for life which means we get partison judges who effect laws by their ideaology and not Constitutionality.
    Under the Patronage of Lord Condormanius

  17. #17

    Default Re: Constitutional or not?

    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,...
    Gives SCOTUS the right to review constitutional law. I guess it comes down to whether or not SCOTUS 'needs' to review every law before it goes to into affect.
    Thats a very liberal interpretation I must say. Again this would basicly throw out all the checks and balances built into the constitution. If they wanted SCOTUS to have this power they would have simply stated it. What makes a SCOTUS judge any more right on the constitution than a senator or congressman? SCOTUS also upheld slavery at one point.
    I have nothing against the womens movement. Especially when Im walking behind it.


  18. #18
    Ramashan's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    4,991

    Default Re: Constitutional or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh View Post
    Thats a very liberal interpretation I must say. Again this would basicly throw out all the checks and balances built into the constitution. If they wanted SCOTUS to have this power they would have simply stated it. What makes a SCOTUS judge any more right on the constitution than a senator or congressman? SCOTUS also upheld slavery at one point.
    Yes it is a liberal interpretation. Is a Liberal interpretation of what is written any different then a conservative? The Constitution clearly states, as I have repeated before:

    "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution {which must include Congress since the establishment of such arises from the Constitution}, the Laws of the United States,...

    What is infered from this can be taken in many forms depending on what your ideaology is.

    For me, I see SCOTUS as the branch that decides whether or not a law passes the lithmus test of the Constitution.

    And regarding what makes SCOTUS judge more right then a Senator or Congressman, well, it is assumed that anyone on SCOTUS is actually a judge who has studied Constitutional Law and congressmen are not. Although, as the Constitution is written, it seems anyone can be nominated to SCOTUS regardless of legal background. Can't wait till that happens. :hmmm:

    Honestly, there is so little describing the powers of SCOTUS in the Constitution that it is way open to debate what exactly their limitations and area of responsibilities are.
    Under the Patronage of Lord Condormanius

  19. #19

    Default Re: Constitutional or not?

    Honestly, there is so little describing the powers of SCOTUS in the Constitution that it is way open to debate what exactly their limitations and area of responsibilities are.
    SCOTUS is part of the Federal Gov no? As such any power no specifically given it in the constitution are the province of the states and the people. How can you support SCOTUS deciding that it has this power according to the constitution?

    The right of judicial review is a practice with origins from the bench itself, established by the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision, and is not expressly provided for in the Constitution.

    Every single word in the constitution was very carefully chosen. Again they would have made it clear that SCOTUS had this power from the start. Jefferson obviously didnt think so.
    I have nothing against the womens movement. Especially when Im walking behind it.


  20. #20

    Default Re: Constitutional or not?

    Well you see the only way to make this:
    - National Service. Two years of service in either Military, Peace Corps, Public Works Corps, or some other group in order to get your right to vote
    happen is through an Amendment to the Constitution. I would never try and pass a law running in the face of the Consitution without changing the constitution in the first place. Thus, there would be no need for judicial review.

    However, if that law was passed without an Amendment than judicial review would absolutely be called for and the right thing to do would be to overturn it on the basis of unconstitutionality.
    The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be used until they try and take it away.
    Staff Officer of Corporal_Hicks in the Legion of Rahl
    Commanding Katrina, Crimson Scythe, drak10687 and Leonidas the Lion

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •