Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution

Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

cyberdude611 -> Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution (9/6/2008 12:34:00 PM)
A Rasmussen poll shows some scary results when they asked polling questions about the Supreme Court and the US Constitution. 82% of John McCain supporters believe the justices should rule on what it says in the constitution. Only 29% of Barack Obama supporters agree. A whopping 49% of Obama supporters believe that the justices should instead rule "based on the judge's sense of fairness" rather than what it says in the constitution. So in other words, never mind the language put in the constitution, the judges should put that aside and rule on their "personal sense of fairness and justice." Scary. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/supreme_court_ratings/supreme_court_update

Jeffff -> RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution (9/6/2008 12:41:58 PM)
From the poll taken between May 21-24, results showed that 68 percent of Republicans tended to favor the idea that humans were created in their present form about 10,000 years ago, while only 30 percent believe in the theory that humans originated from simple organisms. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, were more likely to believe in evolution - 61 and 57 percent, respectively. From a Gallup poll taken May 21-24 equally as scary? Jeff

celticlord2112 -> RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution (9/6/2008 12:42:55 PM)
Obama and his ilk need would do well to study Oliver Wendell Holmes--who, when a friend commented while en route to the courthouse "so you are about to do justice" replied "No, I am going to administer the Law." The Supreme Court is not supposed to be "fair" or even "just". Fairness and justice are matters for legislatures, not judiciaries.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution (9/6/2008 12:43:59 PM)
Not only not scary, but not relevant and not significant.

meatcleaver -> RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution (9/6/2008 12:44:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 So in other words, never mind the language put in the constitution, the judges should put that aside and rule on their "personal sense of fairness and justice." Scary. The language in the constitution is over two hundred years old, the English language has changed, as have the meaning of words. So do you suggest the constitution is like a religious text that should be sacred and not change, eventually only to be understood by those with special knowledge of an old language?

celticlord2112 -> RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution (9/6/2008 12:51:04 PM)
quote: The language in the constitution is over two hundred years old, the English language has changed, as have the meaning of words. So do you suggest the constitution is like a religious text that should be sacred and not change, eventually only to be understood by those with special knowledge of an old language? The language of the constitution is as it is, and, as it is, does not change. The constitution itself does change, and has changed 27 times. They are the Amendments to the constitution. The United States Constitution is indeed a living document, meant to evolve in accordance with the will of the American people. The mechanism of that evolution, however, is not the Supreme Court, but the Congress, the state legislatures, and, ultimately, the citizens themselves.

Jeffff -> RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution (9/6/2008 12:53:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Not only not scary, but not relevant and not significant. While lower courts indeed should administer the law. the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. I would say it is all three. Jeff Who incidentally is not a fan of a radical judiciary

cyberdude611 -> RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution (9/6/2008 12:55:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 So in other words, never mind the language put in the constitution, the judges should put that aside and rule on their "personal sense of fairness and justice." Scary. The language in the constitution is over two hundred years old, the English language has changed, as have the meaning of words. So do you suggest the constitution is like a religious text that should be sacred and not change, eventually only to be understood by those with special knowledge of an old language? Yes and the founding fathers who wrote the constitution were very well aware that things change over time and that in the future, the constitution would have to change. That is why there is a process in the constitution to change what it says. We've changed it 27 times since 1789. But you cant change what it say through the Supreme Court. That is not how it is to be changed. The job of the Supreme Court is rule on whether a law is consistant with the constitution. PERIOD.

Jeffff -> RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution (9/6/2008 1:01:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver The language in the constitution is over two hundred years old, the English language has changed, as have the meaning of words. So do you suggest the constitution is like a religious text that should be sacred and not change, eventually only to be understood by those with special knowledge of an old language? I thinks it deserves more respect than that. I think it had better be held scared or we all all screwed. Evey time some one suggests repealing the 2nd amendment I think, " Sure first ONE of the bill of rights, why not others?.. that ole pesky 1st amendment for instance. The 4th is a pain in the ass too" Jeff

meatcleaver -> RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution (9/6/2008 1:15:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 So in other words, never mind the language put in the constitution, the judges should put that aside and rule on their "personal sense of fairness and justice." Scary. The language in the constitution is over two hundred years old, the English language has changed, as have the meaning of words. So do you suggest the constitution is like a religious text that should be sacred and not change, eventually only to be understood by those with special knowledge of an old language? Yes and the founding fathers who wrote the constitution were very well aware that things change over time and that in the future, the constitution would have to change. That is why there is a process in the constitution to change what it says. We've changed it 27 times since 1789. But you cant change what it say through the Supreme Court. That is not how it is to be changed. The job of the Supreme Court is rule on whether a law is consistant with the constitution. PERIOD. Then what is your problem with someone wanting to change it? After all, 1775 or whenever it was written is a completely different world than today. I know Americans see the constitution as sacred but it is just a constitution. It never gave ordinary Americans the vote, it never emancipated blacks, etc. etc. all those rights were won in spite of the constitution.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution (9/6/2008 1:18:15 PM)
quote: Then what is your problem with someone wanting to change it? There is a prescribed mechanism for change. It does NOT involve the Supreme Court. Justices disregarding the Constitution is not "changing" the Constitution; it is destroying the Constitution. I would rather see the Constitution preserved. Even if it means remembering what a few words meant way back in 1787.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution (9/6/2008 1:20:57 PM)
Again, changing the constitution is fine as long as it is done by the process outlined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court is not permitted to change what it says. The Supreme Court rules on whether a law is "constitutional" or "unconstitutional." It does not rule on fair or unfair. Abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, etc were added to the federal constitution through the amendment process. Those rights were not granted by the Supreme Court.

Jeffff -> RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution (9/6/2008 1:21:48 PM)
We have what is referred to as a, "separation of power". It is not the role of the Judaical branch of the government to change anything. That responsibility lies with the Legislative branch MrCivicsDom BTW. Declaration of Independance.....1776..... Constitution Ratified 1788..

MrRodgers -> RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution (9/6/2008 1:24:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 So in other words, never mind the language put in the constitution, the judges should put that aside and rule on their "personal sense of fairness and justice." Scary. The language in the constitution is over two hundred years old, the English language has changed, as have the meaning of words. So do you suggest the constitution is like a religious text that should be sacred and not change, eventually only to be understood by those with special knowledge of an old language? I disagree. Almost all of the English we use dates to the 15- 1600's and earlier Latin and pre-dates our constitution. The meaning of the words in the constitution do not change...we re-interpret them at our will. Everybody says they want the courts to rule strickly on what one reads and literally interprets in the constitution. They want this all the way up until it rules in a way that doesn't satisfy their own interpretation of the original text. It matters little what the people say unless there is such a gourndswell that an amendment is desired. written and submitted in congress but how many of us think that's really going to happen today ? So in the end the court decides on its certain idealogical bent. Whether it be Roe v. Wade or N.E. private property case or even the idea that employment discrimination has now a new federal statue of limitations (not in the constitution) of an incredibly brief 6 months. Legislating a 'remote liablity' exemption for willing and guilty co-conspirators. Btw, has our great congress of the people changed either one yet ? No.

meatcleaver -> RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution (9/6/2008 1:33:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 So in other words, never mind the language put in the constitution, the judges should put that aside and rule on their "personal sense of fairness and justice." Scary. The language in the constitution is over two hundred years old, the English language has changed, as have the meaning of words. So do you suggest the constitution is like a religious text that should be sacred and not change, eventually only to be understood by those with special knowledge of an old language? I disagree. Almost all of the English we use dates to the 15- 1600's and earlier Latin and pre-dates our constitution. The meaning of the words in the constitution do not change...we re-interpret them at our will. happiness for one?

corysub -> RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution (9/6/2008 1:33:43 PM)
What a revolting development this is...activist judges on the bench making law, and a do nothing group of 435 Congressmen and Congresswoman (Gentle ladies...can you believe that! LOL) as well as 100 Senators do nothing but attack each other in scathing partisan fighting. What is wrong with this picture...is there any hope or should we all just drink the cool aid?

Jeffff -> RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution (9/6/2008 1:42:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver happiness for one? What part of all this aren't you getting? Jeff you are from the Netherlands.............. nevermind....:)

meatcleaver -> RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution (9/6/2008 1:53:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver happiness for one? What part of all this aren't you getting? Jeff you are from the Netherlands.............. nevermind....:) Just pointing out that language, apart from being imprecise, changes, meaning changes with context etc so the interpretation of any document changes too. Interpreters (Judges) are basically shooting at a moving target because of this so I'm just wondering what the big deal is about changing a constitution, especially when its ideological but then, perhaps because it is ideological, that is why people don't want it changed.

Jeffff -> RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution (9/6/2008 1:57:03 PM)
I think there may be a disconnect, between a European and a U.S. perspective on a Constitution. Jeff

MrRodgers -> RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution (9/6/2008 3:36:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver happiness for one? What part of all this aren't you getting? Jeff you are from the Netherlands.............. nevermind....:) Just pointing out that language, apart from being imprecise, changes, meaning changes with context etc so the interpretation of any document changes too. Interpreters (Judges) are basically shooting at a moving target because of this so I'm just wondering what the big deal is about changing a constitution, especially when its ideological but then, perhaps because it is ideological, that is why people don't want it changed. It is the judges that are the moving targets. Knowing full well every detail of the actual transfer of property in the Conn. Eminent Domain case...the court sanctioned this taking on the unconsitituional idea that the state could then resell and thus 'take' private property. Conn. was allowed to...take property from private hands to transfer to private hands. The consitituion reads 'Public use' not public brokerage or public re-selling. The context becomes obvious but only in this new court precedent of 'public use.' Gore v. Bush in 2000 was new precedent and a betrayal of states rights.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125