Re-shaping the future

[Southtown]

Note that Clarence Thomas is a major proponent of "Original Intent", which is just as "creative" as Loose Constructionism, but relies on non-Constitutional sources. It just goes to show you that this divide is *not* Conservative/Liberal, and your earlier posts kinda show that!

Don't know whatcha mean here either, sweetie.

 

Loose is fine if it gets you your results right? :hihi:

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Look, maybe I can see the point of view that 1803 wasn't all that bad, though it seems to only get abused. And now maybe I can see that life terms aren't that bad either, though I prefer my justices to be physically able to show up to court, hear audibly the presented cases, and/or reason/remember applicable legislation. But, are these cause for you to be so insidious?

 

P.S. No, I would be of the "strict" philosophy. I am against "loose" methods of interpretation specifically because it will eventually turn against its wielders. Those compromising the system to get results will have a compromised system to deal with when future results are unacceptable.

 

Plus, what should be strictly adhered to is the design of the system, not the embedded morality. The latter is what the original system was designed to cultivate and mold over time.

[Buffy]

Don't know whatcha mean here either, sweetie.

That's okay! I don't mind if you're blind to your inconsistency, Little Buddy! Most humans seem to be! To clarify though, your arguments were quite clearly arguing that the Constitution should be ignored because it did not "make sense" to you, which is actually way beyond Loose Constructionist thinking, its throwing the thing out completely because its inconvenient to your view of how things should work. That's dangerous! Its also quite common these days among certain political extremists....

Look, maybe I can see the point of view that 1803 wasn't all that bad, though it seems to only get abused. And now maybe I can see that life terms aren't that bad either, though I prefer my justices to be physically able to show up to court, hear audibly the presented cases, and/or reason/remember applicable legislation. But, are these cause for you to be so insidious?

Actually members of the SC have been pretty good about retiring. I was really sorry to see Douglas go long before he needed to and feel the same way today about O'Connor. They're much better than Strom Thurmond who people kept re-electing long after he seriously starting going off the deep-end (heck some of us thought the last election they re-elected his dead body to wheel around because it reliably always fell to the right :hihi: ). Not sure you can claim that life terms are any worse than that.

 

I'm insidious! Wow! Don't think I've ever been called *that* before! Heck, got my own red badge of courage! Thanks, South!

P.S. No, I would be of the "strict" philosophy.

That's been obvious, and I guess I was insideous in pointing out your inconsistency... Sorry!

Plus, what should be strictly adhered to is the design of the system, not the embedded morality. The latter is what the original system was designed to cultivate and mold over time.

And its what Clarence Thomas argues *against*. He says that today's morality is bad and we should look to what the original authors meant in their other writings and the morals of the day. Its an interesting viewpoint, one that I see both conservatives and liberals disagreeing with...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[C1ay]

I wouldn't necessarily claim to be a strict constitutionalist even though I do usually give weight to original intent. I believe a good example for discussion is Amendment XIV § 2:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

A strict interpretation of this article would hold that representation would only be reduced where male voters over 21 have been disenfranchised. Does this mean there is no consequence for abridging the rights of women voters or those younger than 21? I think not. I think the intent when this amendment was ratified in 1868 was to protect the rights of legally eligible voters which, at the time, only included males over 21. I wouldn't classifiy this position as loose or strict but simply an opinion of original intent.

 

I think the court recently failed the people when it did not consider the original intent of the 5th Amendment when it ruled in Kelo vs New London that New London could take private property from one individual to give to another for the purpose of economic development. In my opinion it is extremely farfetched to believe this is what Madison meant when he drafted it or that it is what congress meant in 1791 when the 5th Amendment was ratified.

 

I am of the opinion that the law should say what it means and it should mean what it says. When a gray area is revealed by an opinion of the court that disagrees with the interpretation of congress then congress should correct it's work to clarify what it means. It should not be the job of the judiciary to clarify the intent of congress based on the current makeup of the court. The intent of the laws written by congress should be consistent no matter the membership of the court.

 

Where portions of law are outdated, then amendments should be used to bring them in line with the times, not a loose interpretation that claims the law means something different now than what it meant when it was written. This causes an ambiguity to arise as to when the meaning changed. There should be no doubt today that it is unacceptable to deny young men or women their legal right to vote, the Constitution was amended to give both this right. If they are denied then representation should be reduced as intended by Amendment XIV. It should not be the job of the court to decide this to be the new meaning of an old, obsolete wording based on whatever the current membership of the court is.

 

I also do not think it OK to transfer property from one private owner to another under the guise of public use. Does anyone believe that this is what Madison meant when he drafted the 5th amendment? Does anyone believe that Madison would intend that a man's property could be taken to increase it's taxable value to the government in his effort to draft a Bill of Rights for the people? Is there a doubt as to what he meant?

 

In my opinion it is the job of congress to eliminate these doubts, not that of the USSC to decide loosely or strictly that it means one or the other and the decision of what the law means should certainly not vary from one extreme to another based simply on who the President picks to join the court.

 

At any rate, that's my 2¢...

[Southtown]

...your arguments were quite clearly arguing that the Constitution should be ignored because it did not "make sense" to you...

How so? Where do I deviate?

 

I am of the opinion that the law should say what it means and it should mean what it says. When a gray area is revealed by an opinion of the court that disagrees with the interpretation of congress then congress should correct it's work to clarify what it means. It should not be the job of the judiciary to clarify the intent of congress based on the current makeup of the court. The intent of the laws written by congress should be consistent no matter the membership of the court.

Amen. The intent should be forthright and accurate. Take the tax breaks for married people for example. It's a nice way to promote population expansion (new taxpayers,) but some married people do not have kids. Moreover, people do not need to be married to have kids. *gasp* I have a stupid suggestion: let's change the law to give the tax breaks to parents. The old way is starting to cause a little unintended and needless controversy.

 

The problem is that blunt legislation rarely gets passed. They have to "sneak" things into other lengthy proposals. One way to fix that is to word-limit legislation to, say, two or three volumes so it can be read before it's voted on.

[Buffy]

How so? Where do I deviate?

Ha ha! Up in your original posts you were arguing that having lifetime appointments made no sense, and seemed actually to argue that the judiciary should be ignored completely....that's Loose Constructionism in the extreme! :lol:

Amen. The intent should be forthright and accurate. Take the tax breaks for married people for example. It's a nice way to promote population expansion (new taxpayers,) but some married people do not have kids.

As always, beware of the law of unintended consequences: You'll be encouraging out-of-wedlock births because there is a marriage *penalty* if both spouses work and have the right differential and amount of income! No law that is "simple and straightforward" ever really works well in practice.

 

The best suggestion I ever heard was from a friend of mine's dad who always said, "there ought to be a law that says for every law that gets enacted, they ought to have to repeal another one." Being the snarky teenager that I was at the time, I retorted "guess what the first law they repeal will be!" Oh well! Law of Unintended Consequences! Test of faith! :hihi:

I think the court recently failed the people when it did not consider the original intent of the 5th Amendment when it ruled in Kelo vs New London that New London could take private property from one individual to give to another for the purpose of economic development.

*Great* example of a Strict/Loose issue that is most assuredly *not* a conservative/liberal issue! This used to be iron clad and is the subject of one of my favorite books: New York's Architectural Holdouts http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0486294250/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-0029957-8298361#reader-page. Go to New York and go to the corner of 6th Ave and 50th or 49th and take a look at these little old buildings that even Rockefeller could not budge! Today, the court would have no trouble letting the local pols do eminent domain on those corners and give them to their buddies with the big campaign contributions... The conservatives do it to enrich their friends who hire them later and the bleeding heart liberals do it to feel good about blighting the landscape with public housing that brings down property values and increases crime.

 

Lets hear it for the best government that money can buy!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Southtown]

Ha ha! Up in your original posts you were arguing that having lifetime appointments made no sense, and seemed actually to argue that the judiciary should be ignored completely....that's Loose Constructionism in the extreme! :hihi:

My intended meaning was that justices do not legislate. I apologize for any miscommunication.

 

As always, beware of the law of unintended consequences: You'll be encouraging out-of-wedlock births because there is a marriage *penalty* if both spouses work and have the right differential and amount of income!

That would be a seperate issue, ma'am. All problems cannot be solved in a single law, and such attempts lead to overly-complicated, ill-directed, and easy-to-manipulate legislation.

 

No law that is "simple and straightforward" ever really works well in practice.

You'd make a great politician. I disagree completely, though.

[Buffy]

That would be a seperate issue, ma'am. All problems cannot be solved in a single law, and such attempts lead to overly-complicated, ill-directed, and easy-to-manipulate legislation.

Well, its actually my whole point. You make simple laws, they have unintended consequences, so you come up with another law, it has an unintended consequence, and so on until you get to the 87th add-on and you've forgotten why the first one was even done and half of them just cancel each other out. I personally think its better to work the details out up front, and think through the consequences. Unfortunately, I do see your point because the "sausage making" process--which these days includes *so* much "we can't do that because the other party is for it!"--ends up with the most incredible dumb-@ss amalgams of garbage, that it sure seems to do more harm than good.

 

I've never been a politician, but I've been in a homeowner's association and let me tell ya': if your rules are too simple, you're screwed...."Well, no, it doesn't *explicitly* say you can't park your 40 year old piece-o-crap motor home on our street that only has ten parking spaces...."

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

Favorite quote of the day from the Roberts Senate hearings:

BIDEN: Only to the office, right? It applies narrowly?

SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Let him finish his answer, Senator Biden.

BIDEN: His answers are misleading, with all due respect.

SPECTER: Well...They may be misleading, but they are his answers.

Whee! What fun happens inside the Beltway!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Dark Mind]

:eek2:

 

Government cracks me up :xx:.