Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity >> Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Con... - 9/6/2008 12:34:00 PM   
cyberdude611


Posts: 2596
Joined: 5/7/2006
Status: offline 		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
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the... - 9/6/2008 12:41:58 PM   
Jeffff


Posts: 12600
Joined: 7/7/2007
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the... - 9/6/2008 12:42:55 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline 		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.


_____________________________



(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the... - 9/6/2008 12:43:59 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline 		Not only not scary, but not relevant and not significant.

_____________________________



(in reply to Jeffff)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the... - 9/6/2008 12:44:12 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the... - 9/6/2008 12:51:04 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________



(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the... - 9/6/2008 12:53:36 PM   
Jeffff


Posts: 12600
Joined: 7/7/2007
Status: offline
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

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the... - 9/6/2008 12:55:17 PM   
cyberdude611


Posts: 2596
Joined: 5/7/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the... - 9/6/2008 1:01:04 PM   
Jeffff


Posts: 12600
Joined: 7/7/2007
Status: offline
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

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the... - 9/6/2008 1:15:33 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the... - 9/6/2008 1:18:15 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________



(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the... - 9/6/2008 1:20:57 PM   
cyberdude611


Posts: 2596
Joined: 5/7/2006
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the... - 9/6/2008 1:21:48 PM   
Jeffff


Posts: 12600
Joined: 7/7/2007
Status: offline 		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..

< Message edited by Jeffff -- 9/6/2008 1:26:42 PM >

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the... - 9/6/2008 1:24:43 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
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.


(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the... - 9/6/2008 1:33:15 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the... - 9/6/2008 1:33:43 PM   
corysub


Posts: 1492
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline 		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?

< Message edited by corysub -- 9/6/2008 1:34:20 PM >

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the... - 9/6/2008 1:42:13 PM   
Jeffff


Posts: 12600
Joined: 7/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

happiness for one?



What part of all this aren't you getting?

Jeff


you are from the Netherlands.............. nevermind....:)

< Message edited by Jeffff -- 9/6/2008 1:43:39 PM >

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the... - 9/6/2008 1:53:44 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Jeffff)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the... - 9/6/2008 1:57:03 PM   
Jeffff


Posts: 12600
Joined: 7/7/2007
Status: offline 		I think there may be a disconnect, between a European and a U.S.  perspective on   a Constitution.

Jeff

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the... - 9/6/2008 3:36:53 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 9/6/2008 3:41:09 PM >

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity >> Apparently Obama supporters have a problem with the Constitution Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109