DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Because if a state can ignore or nullify a federal law, as Mr. Cruz demands; what's the point in having a US Constitution? This is a man whom is dangerous to the United States of America. I would go so far as to declare him a TRAITOR to the United States of America.
The point of having a Constitution is to provide the framework for a Federal Government.
The purpose of the US Constitution is to define two separate but equal concepts:
1. The power and reach of all persons within the domain of the federal government.
2. The limits the federal government has towards all the person found under its domain.
The US Constitution doesn't define what powers individuals have. That's been pretty much defined in the Declaration of Independence. I would agree with your second point if you had ended it after the word "has."
quote:
What your stating above 'worked' when the document was only a year old. Its been many years since that date, DS. Stuff does change, right? Because if what you state is correct, then explain how the 17 amendments after the Bill of Rights came into existence?
Yes, it provided the initial framework for the nation, but it was not the whole framework of laws. The US Constitution does not explain NASA for example. Yet NASA came into existence to handle space exploration. The FBI did not exist initially in the US Constitution, yet, its creation has been a good thing for the nation ever since. The US Constitution has nowhere within that explains tariffs in exact terms for those importing and exporting goods. Framework, yes, but not the whole 'human' body. That in those days and now, other federal laws came into existence to handle a vast number of issues.
Every Amendment is an addition to the framework. How the fuck do you not know that? And, every amendment has to be ratified by 3/4 of States, which is determined by the majority of the voting age US Citizens (at least those who choose to vote). Thus, the US Constitution is still a framework defining the powers and authorities granted to the Federal Government by the governed. You are failing at making any point, Joether.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
What happens when the Federal Government passes legislation that it is not Constitutionally authorized to pass, or that goes against provisions in the Constitution? Aren't we to "ignore" a Federal law that isn't Constitutional? What is the proper course of action under those circumstances?
First, it is the task of Congress to make sure a law is Constitutionally acceptable. In cases in which Congress and/or the President are unsure of the exact Constitutional validity of a law, do consult with the Judicial branch. Note, that writing the law with the Judicial branches's blessing, and someone suing the government due to the law while making an argument that expresses why they feel the law violates federal laws; are two separate things.
And, yet, there are parts of laws that are determined to be unConstitutional, aren't there? I have the opinion that it isn't the first task of Congress to make sure a law is Constitutional, but the second, with the change to the task to rationalizing the law's Constitutionality (usually through reinterpretation).
quote:
Take for example DOMA. The court was originally consulted on whether DOMA was Constitutionally 'OK'. It took one or more arguments later in the courts to determine the original law was not 'OK' (ok, the culture of the nation did change too..).
Which is why laws of today are written very in-depth. They are also given a very intensive explanation on what the author(s) think the law should behave and handle under many different circumstances. This is know as the 'spirit of the law'. While it is not the same as the law's wording and understanding, it does allow the court to understand what the author(s) may have had in mind for the law to perform given a future circumstance that author(s) could never known.
Yet, if a law can be reinterpreted and to authorize things that were not intended by the authors. Obamacare was not written in enough depth to define what was intended by the authors in this latest SCOTUS challenge. The only question I have about the ruling was if Gruber's explanation was correct or not. If it was, then SCOTUS got it wrong. If Gruber was wrong, then SCOTUS got it right.
quote:
Which does explain why we have problems with the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 10th amendments. But never issues with the 3rd, 7th, or 9th. In fact there are more court cases involving those six amendments then the other twenty-one on the books. What does the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 10th amendments all have in common?
They are part of the Bill of Rights, right?
Where is the problem? The understanding of 'the spirit of the law' came well after the 18th century. In fact after all the people that had a hand in its creation were dead. Would have been convenient had that not been the case, right? We have letters and other assorted documents. But those seem to serve to create even more discussion and challenges then actually help decide 'what the authors had in mind'. How many threads and posts have BamaD and myself clashed on the 9th paragraph of the 44th Federalist Paper? I rest my case there!
The issue isn't one of why they were written, but of re-interpretation since then. What was the difference between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists? Which group was right?
quote:
You asked a set of good questions. A very good set of reasonable questions. I hope I have given you good answers to those questions.
You have given very good responses, though no answers were contained within.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
Ted Cruz Calls Gay Marriage Ruling The 'Very Definition... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
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