I expected to get some real reasons to vote for him on this forum rather than reasons to vote against the other guy.
Here's one very good, simple reason to vote for Obama:
The next President will likely have the opportunity to appoint as many as three (3) Supreme Court Justices (as well as many, many Federal Court Judges). These people have a tremendous, immediate impact on our lives and, once they're installed in office, they serve for many, many years. Obama was the President of the Harvard law Review. He taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for ten (10) years. Therefore, he's very well suited for making these types of decisions.
10, 20 years? Where are you getting this 10 - 20 year figure from?
It's simple.We agree with what he believes and wants to do.
This does not scare you: Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism. (Oct 2006)
Steve, people have been calling the Constitution a living document since the Warren Court. If you're trying to dredge up FUD with that one, you're barking up the wrong tree. The Constitution is a living document. That is basic, basic stuff.
. . . and I still don't see why this is "Bad News for Democrats".
It's simple.We agree with what he believes and wants to do.
This does not scare you: Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism. (Oct 2006)
Would you feel the same way if your employer told you the terms of your employment are a "living" contract and subject to change at any time?
Yeah, it's not like the constitution has ever been amended or anything.
Ammending is one thing and it requires a very high threshold of voter support. Allowing nine people in black robes to "amend" the constitution is an entirely different matter.
The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.
Ammending is one thing and it requires a very high threshold of voter support. Allowing nine people in black robes to "amend" the constitution is an entirely different matter.
If you want to divest the Court of its ability to interpret the Constitution, you would have to get rid of all precedent since Marbury v. Madison. It's their job to interpret the Constitution. What do you expect them to do, otherwise?
This has been happening for over 200 years, and you're just now deciding that it's something scary? . . . and that it's something new that comes from Obama?
Well, Steve, if the Constitution weren't a living document, we could still go by the three-fifths rule.
If you want to stretch the "living, breathing" argument into the employment sector, let's talk about programmers. If you came into the computer industry in 1994 and didn't make any changes to your business model since then, you are bankrupt right now. Times change. If you aren't adapting to them, you're dying.
It's the same with law. That's the biggest problem with strict constructionism; the society that made the Constitution is long gone and dead, and we face much different problems and live much different lifestyles now.
It's also funny that you advocate strict constructionism and then condemn the way SCOTUS works... since SCOTUS is established by Article III of the Constitution. You can't have it both ways, sir.
It's simple.We agree with what he believes and wants to do.
This does not scare you: Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism. (Oct 2006)
Would you feel the same way if your employer told you the terms of your employment are a "living" contract and subject to change at any time?
I am sick of this argument. The constitution is not some perfect document. It has so many problems it's not funny, the bill of right and the following amendments are just as bad. When it was written only white property owners could vote, Blacks counted as a mere fraction of a person. They didn't have automatic weapons or Teh Internets and the list could go on. They didn't think there would be a time that the government could listen in on all your communications easily. The constitution to remain a viable document needs to be a living contract otherwise we need to throw the whole thing out and start over (and that would lead to a break up of the US eventually).
Strict constitutionists are like Fundie christians that believe every word of the bible is 100% true and they have the right view of how it should be read.
They didn't have automatic weapons or Teh Internets and the list could go on. They didn't think there would be a time that the government could listen in on all your communications easily.
Unless it is in the Constitution the government does not have that power to listen to your phone calls. Those laws should be thrown out. They are indicative of the power-grabbing nature of politicians.
It's like a big HOA that we are all stuck belonging to. An HOA that only allows the members to vote on somethings and not others.
Unless it is in the Constitution the government does not have that power to listen to your phone calls. Those laws should be thrown out. They are indicative of the power-grabbing nature of politicians.
What does this have to do with SCOTUS and the idea of the Constitution as a "living document"? Nothing.
Unless it is in the Constitution the government does not have that power to listen to your phone calls. Those laws should be thrown out. They are indicative of the power-grabbing nature of politicians.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Clearly unwarranted wire tapping is unconstitutional. I can not accept the policy of "tap now, get a warrant later." I can accept a policy of, "Issue warrant for suspect that authorizes wire tapping of any and all forms of communication that person uses." I do not think a separate warrant should be required for each communication device the suspect uses.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Clearly unwarranted wire tapping is unconstitutional. I can not accept the policy of "tap now, get a warrant later." I can accept a policy of, "Issue warrant for suspect that authorizes wire tapping of any and all forms of communication that person uses." I do not think a separate warrant should be required for each communication device the suspect uses.
Is it clear? You have copied the Fourth Amendment, which says that people have a right to be secure against unreasonbale searches and seizures of their "persons, houses, papers, and effects". Is a telephone call part of a person? Is it a house, paper, or effect? Doesn't the language you cite only pertain to "things"? The Amendment doesn't say anything about personal privacy, does it?
Was eavesdropping around at the time the Constitution was ratified? Why doesn't the Amendment then say that people have a right to be secure against the Government eavesdropping on their conversations?
Was eavesdropping around at the time the Constitution was ratified? Why doesn't the Amendment then say that people have a right to be secure against the Government eavesdropping on their conversations?
Even then, what's the definition of eavesdropping? Do I have to be physically present in the eaves? What if I'm present by proxy? Or a place a tube? ^_~
How can one be "secure in their person" without an implied right to privacy? The Constitution is not a document that gives rights to the people but one that puts limits on the government. The Tenth amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. makes it clear.
Was eavesdropping around at the time the Constitution was ratified? Why doesn't the Amendment then say that people have a right to be secure against the Government eavesdropping on their conversations?
Even then, what's the definition of eavesdropping? Do I have to be physically present in the eaves? What if I'm present by proxy? Or a place a tube? ^_~
Could Madison and the founders have imagined a case in which a Government overhears (or simply spies) on a cell of rebels plotting to do some nefarious thing? Do you think they would have said that the Government action in overhearing the conversation was unconstitutional?
How can one be "secure in their person" without an implied right to privacy?
You think there's an implied right of privacy? Isn't that reading something into the Constitution that's the Founders didn't specifically include? Show me a place in the Constitution where they specifically write about a right to privacy. You can't do it. It's not there.
Doesn't your finding that there is an implied right to privacy make for a "living Constitution"? Doesn't that scare you?
How can one be "secure in their person" without an implied right to privacy?
You think there's an implied right of privacy? Isn't that reading something into the Constitution that's the Founders didn't specifically include? Doesn't that make it a living Constitution?
No because that is based on looking at the intent of the founders. The purpose of that amendment is to keep the government out of the lives of the people unless it has a reasonable reason to be there (and gets a warrant).
Saying the founders could not predict the Internet and telephones and using that logic to say that warrant-less wiretapping is OK is an example of a "living" Constitution. The intent of the Fourth Amendment (keep people secure from the government) is clear when you look at the founders and their goals/beliefs when creating the Constitution.
The purpose of that amendment is to keep the government out of the lives of the people unless it has a reasonable reason to be there (and gets a warrant).
Where does it say that? It doesn't say that in the text. You quoted the text. It doesn't say anything about keeping the Goverment out of the "lives of the people". That's YOUR interpretation.
No, Steve. The Founders didn't say anything at all about a "right to privacy". How can you determine whether they had any intent to include a right to privacy? You simply can't from looking at the four corners of the document.
You have to INTERPRET it. When you start interpreting, you go down that "scary" road to a "living Constitution".
The purpose of that amendment is to keep the government out of the lives of the people unless it has a reasonable reason to be there (and gets a warrant).
Where does it say that? It doesn't say that in the text. You quoted the text. It doesn't say anything about keeping the Goverment out of the "lives of the people". That's YOUR interpretation.
No, Steve. The Founders didn't say anything at all about a "right to privacy". How can you determine whether they had any intent to include a right to privacy? You simply can't from looking at the four corners of the document.
You have to INTERPRET it. When you start interpreting, you go down that "scary" road to a "living Constitution".
Your argument is based on the false assumption that the Constitution grants rights to the people governed rather than the opposite where it is a document that sets limits on the government.
The Constitution does not need to specifically grant a right to privacy because the right already exists. The Constitution can only remove that right, not grant it.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
. . . and the discovery of those other rights over time makes the Constitution a living document.
My argument is not based on any false assumption. Your saying that my argument is based on an assumption that the Constitution grants rights is simply a misunderstanding on your part. The Constitution enumerates and protects the rights of the people. If you were a strict constructionist, you would find that there is no right to be protected from wire-tapping, because that was not specifically enumerated. When you start finding rights that are not enumerated, you are engaging in "activism" with respect to a "living Constitution" that you find so "scary".
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
. . . and the discovery of those other rights over time makes the Constitution a living document.
My argument is not based on any false assumption. The Constitution enumerates and protects the rights of the people. When you start finding rights that are not enumerated, you are engaging in "activism" with respect to a "living Constitution" that you find so "scary".
We will have to agree to disagree.
I do not see 'finding' and protecting the rights of the people as activism or an indication of a "living" Constitution. I do consider "finding" government powers that do not exist to be judicial activism and indicative of a "living" Constitution. The Constitution is a limit on government not a granter of rights to the people.
This is silly, Steve. You have no basis for argument. The founders set up a mechanic by which the Constitution can be edited through amendment. By definition, it is a dynamic document, and therefore "living and breathing." It changes. It is updated. It is amended. It provides in Article III another mechanism for SCOTUS to interpret the law. The founders were not strict constructionists; they built the Constitution to change. To argue that it's not living and breathing is simple blindness.
Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court.
I invite you to argue that the Supreme Court does not have the power to interpret law. That should be pretty funny. I suspect that your opinion will not stop the justices from doing just that.
Steve probably hasn't ever even heard of Baron de Montesquieu, or separation of powers, or, you know... all those other little things upon which the American system was built. Little things. Footnotes, really, like... um... that magnum chirpa thing, wasn't it?
Since Jason chose not to answer the question I will.
I did answer the question. The Constitution establishes the Supreme Court. If you knew anything about the history of law, or had ever heard of The Spirit of the Laws, or ever actually studied the way that western law came up, you would know that the founders understood the role of the judiciary to be to interpret laws. When they established the Supreme Court, they established a body to interpret law.
Comments
The next President will likely have the opportunity to appoint as many as three (3) Supreme Court Justices (as well as many, many Federal Court Judges). These people have a tremendous, immediate impact on our lives and, once they're installed in office, they serve for many, many years. Obama was the President of the Harvard law Review. He taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for ten (10) years. Therefore, he's very well suited for making these types of decisions. We've been over this a dozen times. Please read this again. Steve, people have been calling the Constitution a living document since the Warren Court. If you're trying to dredge up FUD with that one, you're barking up the wrong tree. The Constitution is a living document. That is basic, basic stuff.
. . . and I still don't see why this is "Bad News for Democrats".
Lease in 2012, production in 2017... So, 5 years from lease to market? Lease now in 2008 and that oil will enter the market in 2013?
This has been happening for over 200 years, and you're just now deciding that it's something scary? . . . and that it's something new that comes from Obama?
If you want to stretch the "living, breathing" argument into the employment sector, let's talk about programmers. If you came into the computer industry in 1994 and didn't make any changes to your business model since then, you are bankrupt right now. Times change. If you aren't adapting to them, you're dying.
It's the same with law. That's the biggest problem with strict constructionism; the society that made the Constitution is long gone and dead, and we face much different problems and live much different lifestyles now.
It's also funny that you advocate strict constructionism and then condemn the way SCOTUS works... since SCOTUS is established by Article III of the Constitution. You can't have it both ways, sir.
Strict constitutionists are like Fundie christians that believe every word of the bible is 100% true and they have the right view of how it should be read.
It's like a big HOA that we are all stuck belonging to. An HOA that only allows the members to vote on somethings and not others.
Maybe the thread is titled "Bad News for Democrats" because Steve is starting to think like a Democrat?
Was eavesdropping around at the time the Constitution was ratified? Why doesn't the Amendment then say that people have a right to be secure against the Government eavesdropping on their conversations?
Doesn't your finding that there is an implied right to privacy make for a "living Constitution"? Doesn't that scare you?
Saying the founders could not predict the Internet and telephones and using that logic to say that warrant-less wiretapping is OK is an example of a "living" Constitution. The intent of the Fourth Amendment (keep people secure from the government) is clear when you look at the founders and their goals/beliefs when creating the Constitution.
No, Steve. The Founders didn't say anything at all about a "right to privacy". How can you determine whether they had any intent to include a right to privacy? You simply can't from looking at the four corners of the document.
You have to INTERPRET it. When you start interpreting, you go down that "scary" road to a "living Constitution".
The Constitution does not need to specifically grant a right to privacy because the right already exists. The Constitution can only remove that right, not grant it.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
My argument is not based on any false assumption. Your saying that my argument is based on an assumption that the Constitution grants rights is simply a misunderstanding on your part. The Constitution enumerates and protects the rights of the people. If you were a strict constructionist, you would find that there is no right to be protected from wire-tapping, because that was not specifically enumerated. When you start finding rights that are not enumerated, you are engaging in "activism" with respect to a "living Constitution" that you find so "scary".
I do not see 'finding' and protecting the rights of the people as activism or an indication of a "living" Constitution. I do consider "finding" government powers that do not exist to be judicial activism and indicative of a "living" Constitution. The Constitution is a limit on government not a granter of rights to the people.
I invite you to argue that the Supreme Court does not have the power to interpret law. That should be pretty funny. I suspect that your opinion will not stop the justices from doing just that.
Marbury v. Madison - A case where judicial activism created a power for the judicial branch that did not previously exist.
Judicial Review is not in the Constitution.
Since I'm feeling generous, here's the online version of Charles de Secondat's 1759 book, which Thomas Jefferson referenced widely.