RE: The Immigration Ban

RE: The Immigration Ban (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/21/2017 6:49:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML The census population in 1800 was reported as about 3.5 million people. This year we have probably exceeded 330 million people. Population sprawl puts pressure on government to expand. I can't imagine how the available governance of 1780 held static could provide adequate services for today's population. I refer not only to the physical apparatus of governance but to the political philosophy as well. Nowhere have I said that government shouldn't have gotten larger as the population and physical landmass of the US also got larger. I will argue that it's too big today, though, and has been for quite some time. But, government sprawl also includes government getting into areas where it wasn't authorized to do so. The Interstate Commerce Clause was to allow the Federal Government to mediate economic abuses between or among States. It wasn't intended to have a say in every bit of commerce that crosses state lines. Yet, the Federal government's sprawl has gotten there. quote: The brilliance of the Constitution is that it survived such enormous and radical population and technological change with only ONE tragically disruptive civil war, and without calling for new Constitutional Conventions. The Founders have much to be proud of. I completely agree. quote: Originalism might be successfully pursued by this or that individual Justice but believing that the NINE could be mandated to adopt the philosophy is daft. Here, you're saying that you can change the Constitution by changing the way the Constitution is interpreted. That's not an authorized way to change the Constitution.

mnottertail -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/21/2017 7:40:29 AM)
The Congress shall have Power To...regulate Commerce...among the several States.... ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 3 (there was no let nor hindrance on what the regulation of commerce is) its an area.

vincentML -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/21/2017 8:26:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail The Congress shall have Power To...regulate Commerce...among the several States.... ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 3 (there was no let nor hindrance on what the regulation of commerce is) its an area. Well, we could have each state build a wall and set up checkpoints. [8\|] Or, just ignore the illegal trafficking of drugs, whores, and guns. [8\|]

vincentML -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/21/2017 8:38:19 AM)
quote: Here, you're saying that you can change the Constitution by changing the way the Constitution is interpreted. That's not an authorized way to change the Constitution. I am saying a couple of things, not just one: 1. The fact that there are so many split decisions informs us that it is not likely that any nine people will come up with the same interpretation, given different personal philosophies they harbor. 2. Originalism may prefer that all decisions are based upon intent of the Founders but that is a wet dream utopia for at least two reasons . . (a) we are living in a different world than the Founders, and (b) there is no practical way to enforce such a requirement. 3. Stare dices change may not be authorized but it has become accepted custom in some very weighty Decisions. So, I suggest that because of 2(b) and 3 especially, you will just have to resign yourself to the current situation, and I will bask in its necessity and righteousness. [;)]

DesideriScuri -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/21/2017 3:00:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Here, you're saying that you can change the Constitution by changing the way the Constitution is interpreted. That's not an authorized way to change the Constitution. I am saying a couple of things, not just one: 1. The fact that there are so many split decisions informs us that it is not likely that any nine people will come up with the same interpretation, given different personal philosophies they harbor. So, changing the Constitution (more specifically, the application of the Constitution) is as "easy" as changing the SCOTUS makeup. quote: 2. Originalism may prefer that all decisions are based upon intent of the Founders but that is a wet dream utopia for at least two reasons . . (a) we are living in a different world than the Founders, and (b) there is no practical way to enforce such a requirement. You said before that original intent was the starting point for all decisions. How is it that we can still end up with the opposite of intent? That our world is incredibly different is immaterial to the application of the Constitution. The Framers were fairly careful with their word choices. Note the 2nd Amendment where they didn't specify the right to bear muskets and bayonets, but the right to bear arms, allowing for future development of firearms to still fall within the right. No practical way to enforce it? How so? If each justice writes his or her own opinion, explaining how that opinion was formed, we can see if originalism was ignored or was the basis for the decision. quote: 3. Stare dices change may not be authorized but it has become accepted custom in some very weighty Decisions. Thankfully, stare decisis is not guaranteed at the SCOTUS level. It may have a good amount of weight, but earlier decisions can be overruled. While lower courts, pretty much, have to follow stare decisis, that can lead to more challenges of questionable decisions. quote: So, I suggest that because of 2(b) and 3 especially, you will just have to resign yourself to the current situation, and I will bask in its necessity and righteousness. [;)] I am resigned myself to the current situation, but won't stop supporting my position on this.

tj444 -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/22/2017 12:13:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail The Congress shall have Power To...regulate Commerce...among the several States.... ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 3 (there was no let nor hindrance on what the regulation of commerce is) its an area. Well, we could have each state build a wall and set up checkpoints. [8\|] Or, just ignore the illegal trafficking of drugs, whores, and guns. [8\|] There are checkpoints now, in many states.. as I said previously, about 70% of the population lives within 100 miles of a US border or coastline and Homeland does set up checkpoints to intimidate people into "showing their papers"... of course if they sense something isnt quite right then they can bring in the drug dog and you will likely be questioned in depth... at the US border itself you dont got no fucking rights as the constitution (apparently) doesnt apply there.. and some states they set up checkpoints to question drivers about the fruit/food they are bringing with them as they cross state lines.. I was stopped at one of those a long time ago, very strange... like certain unwanted bugs/pests cant fly over the state border on their own..

vincentML -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/22/2017 12:47:07 AM)
quote: There are checkpoints now, in many states.. as I said previously, about 70% of the population lives within 100 miles of a US border or coastline and Homeland does set up checkpoints to intimidate people into "showing their papers"... of course if they sense something isnt quite right then they can bring in the drug dog and you will likely be questioned in depth... at the US border itself you dont got no fucking rights as the constitution (apparently) doesnt apply there.. Well, yeah. International borders do not arouse the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Feds do have jurisdiction over our international borders, so I miss the reason for your complaint there. quote: and some states they set up checkpoints to question drivers about the fruit/food they are bringing with them as they cross state lines.. I was stopped at one of those a long time ago, very strange... like certain unwanted bugs/pests cant fly over the state border on their own.. You make a good point . . . except for the larvae.

vincentML -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/22/2017 1:10:07 AM)
quote: So, changing the Constitution (more specifically, the application of the Constitution) is as "easy" as changing the SCOTUS makeup. I believe that's what happened in Brown v. Board of Education overturning Plessy, yes. quote: You said before that original intent was the starting point for all decisions. How is it that we can still end up with the opposite of intent? That our world is incredibly different is immaterial to the application of the Constitution. The Framers were fairly careful with their word choices. Note the 2nd Amendment where they didn't specify the right to bear muskets and bayonets, but the right to bear arms, allowing for future development of firearms to still fall within the right. Not at all immaterial. There was a ruling yesterday at the Appeals Court upholding the banning of assault rifles in Virginia (?) We shall see how that fares going upward. But citizens are also banned from walking about with machine guns, flame throwers, and RPGs, and they are "arms" right? I also doubt you could get a license plate for a Sherman Tank by invoking the Second. quote: No practical way to enforce it? How so? If each justice writes his or her own opinion, explaining how that opinion was formed, we can see if originalism was ignored or was the basis for the decision. Who would judge the Justices? A panel of jurists/academics? And what penalty if they have life tenure? The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. About as useless as anything else in the Constitution when applied to Justices. Can a Justice be impeached? Whoa, would that not be an interesting broohaha? quote: Thankfully, stare decisis is not guaranteed at the SCOTUS level. It may have a good amount of weight, but earlier decisions can be overruled. Thank you for the correct spelling. I was too lazy to spell check it. But yes, that confirms your earlier point about changing Justices, doesn't it? So, in that way, nothing is forever. quote: I am resigned myself to the current situation, but won't stop supporting my position on this. Fair enough. And thanks for helping me explore and learn. [;)]

DesideriScuri -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/22/2017 7:49:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: You said before that original intent was the starting point for all decisions. How is it that we can still end up with the opposite of intent? That our world is incredibly different is immaterial to the application of the Constitution. The Framers were fairly careful with their word choices. Note the 2nd Amendment where they didn't specify the right to bear muskets and bayonets, but the right to bear arms, allowing for future development of firearms to still fall within the right. Not at all immaterial. There was a ruling yesterday at the Appeals Court upholding the banning of assault rifles in Virginia (?) We shall see how that fares going upward. But citizens are also banned from walking about with machine guns, flame throwers, and RPGs, and they are "arms" right? I also doubt you could get a license plate for a Sherman Tank by invoking the Second. I think a Sherman Tank might not fall under the category of "arms." Machine guns are looked upon as "unusual and dangerous," disqualifying them from protection of the 2nd amendment. I'm going to guess that flamethrowers and RPG's are similarly classified. Whether that's Constitutional or not, I'm not sure, but if we must pick our battles, I'm not picking that one. quote: quote: No practical way to enforce it? How so? If each justice writes his or her own opinion, explaining how that opinion was formed, we can see if originalism was ignored or was the basis for the decision. Who would judge the Justices? A panel of jurists/academics? That's a very interesting question. Considering lifetime appointment, where is the check on the Judicial Branch? Even though it's a very interesting question, the US has muddled it's way through very interesting questions and times before. I'm certain we could figure it out if we tried. quote: And what penalty if they have life tenure? The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. About as useless as anything else in the Constitution when applied to Justices. Can a Justice be impeached? Whoa, would that not be an interesting broohaha? I think the key is the "during good behavior" qualifier. quote: quote: Thankfully, stare decisis is not guaranteed at the SCOTUS level. It may have a good amount of weight, but earlier decisions can be overruled. Thank you for the correct spelling. I was too lazy to spell check it. But yes, that confirms your earlier point about changing Justices, doesn't it? So, in that way, nothing is forever. quote: I am resigned myself to the current situation, but won't stop supporting my position on this. Fair enough. And thanks for helping me explore and learn. [;)] Few on here might believe it, but I've learned a ridiculous amount because of discussions, arguments, and other lines of discourse on this here board. I do appreciate good discussions among people of varying beliefs, backgrounds, and experiences. It only adds to my knowledge and understanding of things. I do not tolerate people being douchebags, or those whose only apparent reason to be here is to attack other posters. So, to that end, thank you for another good discussion.

thompsonx -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/22/2017 8:05:48 AM)
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, changing the Constitution (more specifically, the application of the Constitution) is as "easy" as changing the SCOTUS makeup. Pretty much...you may not be familiar with the following but those who do not have their head shoved up their ass will recognize them. Dred scott plessy v. ferguson bown v. board of education You said before that original intent was the starting point for all decisions. How is it that we can still end up with the opposite of intent? Second ammendment was writen so slave holders could control their slaves. Now slavery is illegal and the second is claimed to be a check on the government which is ludicrous since armed rebellion against the government is illegal is not sanctioned by the constitrution. It is however sanctioned by the declaration of indewpendence which you claim hase no force in law.

thompsonx -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/22/2017 9:34:38 AM)
ORIGINAL: vincentML About as useless as anything else in the Constitution when applied to Justices. Can a Justice be impeached? Whoa, would that not be an interesting broohaha? Sam "the man" chase was impeached in 1804. Acquited.

vincentML -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/22/2017 10:33:31 AM)
quote: That's a very interesting question. Considering lifetime appointment, where is the check on the Judicial Branch? Even though it's a very interesting question, the US has muddled it's way through very interesting questions and times before. I'm certain we could figure it out if we tried. To your point, I am currently reading a book titled White Rage by Carol Anderson, PhD, which reports on what happened in the South after Lincoln was killed. Apparently, President Andrew Johnson, a fierce champion of poor whites, pardoned all of the generals and civilian leaders of the rebellion. Not a one was hung. So, the same old crew was back in power in the state houses, and they promptly passed the "Black Codes" which among other things required blacks to contract for a "job" with a plantation or mine owner within the first ten days of the new year. Unemployed blacks would be considered "vagrants" and either auctioned away or imprisoned in the developing prison farm systems. They were also denied state money to build their own schools, and a number of other demeaning and discriminatory prohibitions. The KKK was formed and terrible slaughters of blacks occurred in New Orleans and Memphis; one thousand or more were lynched in Texas. In response Congress authored the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments and passed the Civil Rights Enforcement Act (1870) However, in a series of cases the Supreme Court ignored the intent of the Laws but going strictly by the construction of language in the Constitution declared the Enforcement Acts unconstitutional, ruling that the 14th Amendment equal protection clause only prohibited acts by the states, but not by private entities, so the Federal Government had no jurisdiction over the latter. The states' poll taxes were declared constitutional because they applied to everyone despite the intent of Congress to enfranchise black men. Only 3% of all male citizens voted in the eleven rebellious states after that. The "separate but equal" doctrine applied against Mr. Plessy's insistence he be allowed to ride the train in the same car as whites came from an earlier ruling on a tax claim made by the Santa Fe Railroad that they were not treated fairly because the prohibited tax deduction applied only to businesses, at which point the Supremes declared that corporations were people. Talk about "behaving badly." Holy moley!!! quote: I do appreciate good discussions among people of varying beliefs, backgrounds, and experiences. It only adds to my knowledge and understanding of things. I do not tolerate people being douchebags, or those whose only apparent reason to be here is to attack other posters. I very much agree. I am very tired of the flaming and the slander. It really got to me when one guy named two others in his thread topic. Otherwise, yes, there are some very intelligent people with very good information and points of view on here. And wonderful humor! [:D]

vincentML -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/22/2017 10:41:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: vincentML About as useless as anything else in the Constitution when applied to Justices. Can a Justice be impeached? Whoa, would that not be an interesting broohaha? Sam "the man" chase was impeached in 1804. Acquited. Oh, hey . . . thank you. But notice the bolded line below: Chase's defense team, which included several of the nation's most eminent attorneys, convinced several wavering senators that Chase's conduct did not warrant his removal from office. With at least six Jeffersonian Republicans joining the nine Federalists who voted not guilty on each article, the Senate on March 1, 1805, acquitted Samuel Chase on all counts. A majority voted guilty on three of the eight articles, but on each article the vote fell far short of the two-thirds required for conviction. The Senate thereby effectively insulated the judiciary from further congressional attacks based on disapproval of judges’ opinions. Chase resumed his duties at the bench, where he remained until his death in 1811. Good Information, Thank you again.

thompsonx -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/22/2017 12:31:21 PM)
ORIGINAL: vincentML ORIGINAL: thompsonx Sam "the man" chase was impeached in 1804. Acquited. Oh, hey . . . thank you. He sticks in my mind because I had done a paper on him when I was in school.

vincentML -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/22/2017 4:22:50 PM)
WOW! Great memory . . . [;)]

mnottertail -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/23/2017 12:23:15 PM)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/05/trumps-wife-worked-illegally-during-her-first-weeks-in-us-documents-show.html Lets rid America of this illegal mattress backed slut, Donald Douche.

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625