Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 24 Oct 2008 13:12 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
LOL aren't you splitting the wrong hair:
1 Century = 100 years
2 Centuries = 200 years
I believe the statement is accurate.
I guess we are arguing semantics. I don't think I or most people would refer to 2 years ago as being "years ago". Same thing with centuries. To me "centuries ago" would be more than 3. Just me I guess, if it works for you, cool.
Quote:
Exactly! Since no one can ask a long dead person to clarify 1) what he really meant by a phrase or 2) a modern application of his phrase that rests outside of his 18th century consciousness we are forced to rely on what we have to reinterpret and modernize what was written. Since no one, not even so-called strict constructionists, refuse to reinterpret the constitution to resolve modern issues that none of the founders truly opined on, the slippery slope is a fact of life.
Re-interpret, in whose views??? The people who are currently in power??? Suppose the opposition comes into power, then we re-interpret again?? The most solid way to view the Constitution and keep in in tact, is to interpret it as the Founding Fathers designed it. Change it as needed by Amendments. Granted, there is room for interpretation, but not as much as the left wants to think there is. I know we have issues that could have never been imagined over 200 years ago. That does not mean we re-interpret the ideals to fit our standards. Particularly when we have mounds of information that tells us exactly what was meant or what was intended. If we see a flaw, and there are some, we change it. If we need to add something, we change it. By Amendments. In order to do this, we need a much less apathetic population.
sagascend wrote:
But mine and John McCain's right to run for president is precisely that: An invented right based on (20th) century thinking.
Sort of. If someone in the military serving their country on a base in a foreign country operated by the country they are serving, has a child on that base, should not that child be considered a natural born citizen. Actually military bases are considered to be the soil of the country which operates them. On December 7, 1941, Hawaii was not a state. But when the Japanese attacked the Naval base there, it was an attack on the United States. So, not really an invented right. It is more an extension.
She's expressed this idea more than once. I don't think it is a slip up at all. I think she holds the mistaken belief that the VP has a substantial role to play in crafting legislation. It's one thing to mess up amendment numbers or not be able to recite chapter and verse of the Constitution (which many people cannot do) and another to completely misinterpret it.
She is sticking to her talking points no matter what. Just like the bridge to nowhere fiasco.
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 {Posts: 185 } Location: Southern California
Posted: Sun 26 Oct 2008 00:40 Post subject:
Oh well, whatever Palin believes that she's running for; there's one McCain aide felt that she was "going rogue" in the process....go figure
Quote:
ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico (CNN) -- With 10 days until Election Day, long-brewing tensions between GOP vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin and key aides to Sen. John McCain have become so intense, they are spilling out in public, sources say.
Several McCain advisers have suggested to CNN that they have become increasingly frustrated with what one aide described as Palin "going rogue."
A Palin associate, however, said the candidate is simply trying to "bust free" of what she believes was a damaging and mismanaged roll-out.
McCain sources say Palin has gone off-message several times, and they privately wonder whether the incidents were deliberate. They cited an instance in which she labeled robocalls -- recorded messages often used to attack a candidate's opponent -- "irritating" even as the campaign defended their use. Also, they pointed to her telling reporters she disagreed with the campaign's decision to pull out of Michigan.
A second McCain source says she appears to be looking out for herself more than the McCain campaign.
"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," said this McCain adviser. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else.
"Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."
A Palin associate defended her, saying that she is "not good at process questions" and that her comments on Michigan and the robocalls were answers to process questions.
But this Palin source acknowledged that Palin is trying to take more control of her message, pointing to last week's impromptu news conference on a Colorado tarmac.
Tracey Schmitt, Palin's press secretary, was urgently called over after Palin wandered over to the press and started talking. Schmitt tried several times to end the unscheduled session.
"We acknowledge that perhaps she should have been out there doing more," a different Palin adviser recently said, arguing that "it's not fair to judge her off one or two sound bites" from the network interviews.
The Politico reported Saturday on Palin's frustration, specifically with McCain advisers Nicolle Wallace and Steve Schmidt. They helped decide to limit Palin's initial press contact to high-profile interviews with Charlie Gibson of ABC and Katie Couric of CBS, which all McCain sources admit were highly damaging.
In response, Wallace e-mailed CNN the same quote she gave the Politico: "If people want to throw me under the bus, my personal belief is that the most honorable thing to do is to lie there."
But two sources, one Palin associate and one McCain adviser, defended the decision to keep her press interaction limited after she was picked, both saying flatly that she was not ready and that the missteps could have been a lot worse.
They insisted that she needed time to be briefed on national and international issues and on McCain's record.
"Her lack of fundamental understanding of some key issues was dramatic," said another McCain source with direct knowledge of the process to prepare Palin after she was picked. The source said it was probably the "hardest" to get her "up to speed than any candidate in history."
Schmitt came to the back of the plane Saturday to deliver a statement to traveling reporters: "Unnamed sources with their own agenda will say what they want, but from Gov. Palin down, we have one agenda, and that's to win on Election Day."
Yet another senior McCain adviser lamented the public recriminations.
"This is what happens with a campaign that's behind; it brings out the worst in people, finger-pointing and scapegoating," this senior adviser said.
This adviser also decried the double standard, noting that Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, has gone off the reservation as well, most recently by telling donors at a fundraiser that America's enemies will try to "test" Obama.
Tensions like those within the McCain-Palin campaign are not unusual; vice presidential candidates also have a history of butting heads with the top of the ticket.
John Edwards and his inner circle repeatedly questioned Sen. John Kerry's strategy in 2004, and Kerry loyalists repeatedly aired in public their view that Edwards would not play the traditional attack dog role with relish because he wanted to protect his future political interests.
Even in a winning campaign like Bill Clinton's, some of Al Gore's aides in 1992 and again in 1996 questioned how Gore was being scheduled for campaign events.
Jack Kemp's aides distrusted the Bob Dole camp and vice versa, and Dan Quayle loyalists had a list of gripes remarkably similar to those now being aired by Gov. Palin's aides.
With the presidential race in its final days and polls suggesting that McCain's chances of pulling out a win are growing slim, Palin may be looking after her own future.
"She's no longer playing for 2008; she's playing 2012," Democratic pollster Peter Hart said. "And the difficulty is, when she went on 'Saturday Night Live,' she became a reinforcement of her caricature. She never allowed herself to be vetted, and at the end of the day, voters turned against her both in terms of qualifications and personally."
Re-interpret, in whose views??? The people who are currently in power???
Yes.
DChapman wrote:
Suppose the opposition comes into power, then we re-interpret again??
Seems to me that's what happens. The words don't change, barring an amendment.
DChapman wrote:
The most solid way to view the Constitution and keep in in tact, is to interpret it as the Founding Fathers designed it. Change it as needed by Amendments. Granted, there is room for interpretation, but not as much as the left wants to think there is.
The issue is not that I disagree with what you have written it is that I interpret the same document differently. It will come down to "the spirit" of what is written in the document. And frankly, I believe that the writers of the Constitution provides the leeway for future generations to create the society they wish to live in. I do not worship the "founding fathers" as gods or infallible beings. Not saying that you do, I just wish to point out that I see them as very fallible men who laid the groundwork for a great nation, but still an imperfect and flawed one.
DChapman wrote:
I know we have issues that could have never been imagined over 200 years ago. That does not mean we re-interpret the ideals to fit our standards. Particularly when we have mounds of information that tells us exactly what was meant or what was intended. If we see a flaw, and there are some, we change it. If we need to add something, we change it. By Amendments. In order to do this, we need a much less apathetic population.
I'm not sure how ideals are simultaneously unchanged yet altered to fit "standards" if these standards are not specifically referenced. Societies and their ideals change over time. Reinterpretation of previous tenets and a reexamination of previously held standards is inevitable.
DChapman wrote:
Sort of. If someone in the military serving their country on a base in a foreign country operated by the country they are serving, has a child on that base, should not that child be considered a natural born citizen. Actually military bases are considered to be the soil of the country which operates them. On December 7, 1941, Hawaii was not a state. But when the Japanese attacked the Naval base there, it was an attack on the United States. So, not really an invented right. It is more an extension.
I'm aware of the rationale, and support it, but on what Constitutional basis was it made?
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Tue 28 Oct 2008 15:01 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
DChapman wrote:
Re-interpret, in whose views??? The people who are currently in power???
Yes.
DChapman wrote:
Suppose the opposition comes into power, then we re-interpret again??
Seems to me that's what happens. The words don't change, barring an amendment.
So if keep re-interpreting based on who's in power, what's the sense of having the Constitution at all if we do not interpret it as intended the best we can. Then it is about as worthless as used toilet paper. And you're right, this has been happening and it's one of the reasons why we have strayed off the intended course. I will say this, Thomas Jefferson did not think we would be able to abide by the Constitution very long. He thought at some point, the government would have to be overthrown, hence the second amendment. All because of not following the Constituton to the letter of the law. Government gets bigger and bolder. The overthow has not happened, at least yet. It is bound to at some point, in the near future, IMO. So I say, bring on Obama!!!!
sagascend wrote:
The issue is not that I disagree with what you have written it is that I interpret the same document differently. It will come down to "the spirit" of what is written in the document. And frankly, I believe that the writers of the Constitution provides the leeway for future generations to create the society they wish to live in. I do not worship the "founding fathers" as gods or infallible beings. Not saying that you do, I just wish to point out that I see them as very fallible men who laid the groundwork for a great nation, but still an imperfect and flawed one.
Yes, they did leave the leeway for future generations to create the society they wish to live in, that is by Amending the Constitution, not through intepretation. If we're going to keep interpreting and re-interpreting the document, we might as well just throw it out, for it will be rendered useless. If there is something in the Constitution that needs to be added or changed, then an Amendment is the proper procedure. It is hard and was intended to be so. We will need a far less apathetic population. That's where the interpretation comes into play. It's the lazy way around an Amendment. "Hey, I see this as...", then 10 years, "I see that as somthing else..." I do not think this was the intention of the Founding Fathers, but I think they expected this to happen, hence the reason why they did not think the Republic would last as long as it has.
When asked what kind of government they came up with, Benjamin Franklin reportedly replied, "A Republic, madame, if you can keep it."
It looks to me we are on the verge of losing it, no matter who wins, because both parties are as guilty as the other regarding following the Constitution. Basically this war is unconstitutional because Congress has not declared war. That's another story.
I have always said, the Constitution and the men who wrote it are not perfect, infallible beings. But they were ahead of their time, IMO.
So if keep re-interpreting based on who's in power, what's the sense of having the Constitution at all if we do not interpret it as intended the best we can. Then it is about as worthless as used toilet paper. And you're right, this has been happening and it's one of the reasons why we have strayed off the intended course. I will say this, Thomas Jefferson did not think we would be able to abide by the Constitution very long. He thought at some point, the government would have to be overthrown, hence the second amendment. All because of not following the Constituton to the letter of the law. Government gets bigger and bolder. The overthow has not happened, at least yet. It is bound to at some point, in the near future, IMO. So I say, bring on Obama!!!!
Well the problem is that lots of people presume to be experts on Constitutional interpretation, and even they don't all agree on the right interpretration. So it will come down to the prevailing views on interpretation that are empowered by citizens through election and confirmed in the judiciary. A very similar phenomenon exists in religious circles, where there is very little agreement on how to interpret much older, more vast and much more intricate texts.
DChapman wrote:
Yes, they did leave the leeway for future generations to create the society they wish to live in, that is by Amending the Constitution, not through intepretation.
To me it is not an either/or proposition. If a change warrants an amendment and there is enough support for it, it passes. If an existing clause is reinterpreted or extended an amendment may not be required. First Amendment decisions are a great example of the latter. The meaning and context of words does not stay the same. They are best understood in the context of the time in which they were written, but they have to be applied in modern times. The reconciliation between the two means that reinterpretation to fit modern situations is a necessary and inevitable occurrence.
DChapman wrote:
If we're going to keep interpreting and re-interpreting the document, we might as well just throw it out, for it will be rendered useless. If there is something in the Constitution that needs to be added or changed, then an Amendment is the proper procedure. It is hard and was intended to be so.
Texts that can be made relevant to modern times aren't thrown out. Texts that cannot be reinterpreted for modern times, however, do become relics. I think the fundamentals of the Constitution are strong ( ) enough to withstand modern times, but no one can know what kind of organizing principles future citizens will require.
DChapman wrote:
We will need a far less apathetic population. That's where the interpretation comes into play. It's the lazy way around an Amendment. "Hey, I see this as...", then 10 years, "I see that as somthing else..." I do not think this was the intention of the Founding Fathers, but I think they expected this to happen, hence the reason why they did not think the Republic would last as long as it has.
One more reason to bracket their views as contextual and fallible. I have no concerns about whether a founding father is turning in his grave at the thought of an Obama presidency or an altered constitution. As far as I am concerned the endurance of the republic is one more thing they were utterly wrong about.
DChapman wrote:
I have always said, the Constitution and the men who wrote it are not perfect, infallible beings. But they were ahead of their time, IMO.
Sure, but even the most revolutionary act of its time can be rendered commonplace or inadequate with time.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Tue 28 Oct 2008 16:26 Post subject:
I think this says it all:
Quote:
"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected in the way which the Constitution designates.
"But let there be no change by usurpation, for this, though it may in one instance be the instrument of good, is the ordinary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.."
WASHINGTON.
Though over 200 years ago, these words will apply until the end of time.
What George Washington means here, correction through Amendment, as the Constitution designates. The interpretation method will eventually crash the government. Perhaps that's the agenda of some.
"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected in the way which the Constitution designates.
"But let there be no change by usurpation, for this, though it may in one instance be the instrument of good, is the ordinary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.."
WASHINGTON.
Though over 200 years ago, these words will apply until the end of time.
What George Washington means here, correction through Amendment, as the Constitution designates. The interpretation method will eventually crash the government. Perhaps that's the agenda of some.
LOL what does "change by usurpation" mean? Do we know what Washington meant by the phrase and will that stay the same "until the end of time?"
Usurpation:
trespass: entry to another's property without right or permission
wrongfully seizing and holding (an office or powers) by force (especially the seizure of a throne or supreme authority); "a succession of generals who ruled by usurpation"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Usurper (lat. usurpare = to seize for use, to use) is a derogatory term used to describe either an illegitimate or controversial claimant to the throne in a monarchy; or a person (perhaps a warlord) who succeeds in establishing an autocracy without securing "the consent of the governed. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usurpation
the wrongful seizure of something by force, especially of sovereignty or other authority; trespass onto another's property without permission
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Tue 28 Oct 2008 18:06 Post subject:
Exceprts from: Whose Constitution?
An Inquiry into the Limits
of Constitutional Interpretation
J. Clifford Wallace
Quote:
What is the difference between interpretivism and noninterpretivism? This question is important because I believe interpretivism is the cornerstone of a constitutional jurisprudence of judicial restraint. By "interpretivism," I mean the principle that judges, in resolving constitutional questions, should rely on the express provisions of the Constitution or upon those norms that are clearly implicit in its text.[2] Under an interpretivist approach, the original intention of the Framers is the controlling guide for constitutional interpretation. This does not mean, of course, that judges may apply a constitutional provision only to situations specifically contemplated by the Framers. Rather, it simply requires that when considering whether to invalidate the work of the political branches, the judges do so from a starting point fairly discoverable in the Constitution.[3] By contrast, under noninterpretive review, judges may freely rest their decisions on value judgments that admittedly are not supported by, and may even contravene, the text of the Constitution and the intent of the Framers.[4]
Quote:
As Thomas Jefferson observed, "Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction."[6] Chief Justice Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison, the very case establishing the power of judicial review, emphasized constraints imposed by the written text and the judicial duty to respect these constraints in all cases raising constitutional questions.[7]
Moreover, the Framers recognized the importance of interpreting the Constitution according to their original intent. In Madison's words, if "the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the Nation ... be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable government, [nor] for a faithful exercise of its powers."[8] Similarly, Jefferson as president acknowledged his duty to administer the Constitution "according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people at the time of its adoption — a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated ... it."[9] It seems clear, therefore, that the leading Framers were interpretivists and believed that the constitutional questions should be reviewed by that approach.
Quote:
Leaving the critical history of the importance of interpretivism to the Founders, I would now like to consider whether interpretivism is necessary to effectuate the constitutional plan. The essential starting point is that the Constitution established a separation of powers to protect our freedom. Because freedom is fundamental, so too is the separation of powers. But separation of powers becomes a meaningless slogan if judges may confer constitutional status on whichever rights they happen to deem important, regardless of a textual basis. In effect, under noninterpretive review, the judiciary functions as a super-legislature beyond the check of the other two branches. Noninterpretivist review also disregards the Constitution's careful allocation of most decisions to the democratic process, allowing the legislature to make decisions deemed best for society. Ultimately, noninterpretivist review reduces our written Constitution to insignificance and threatens to impose a tyranny of the judiciary.
Quote:
Advocates of noninterpretivism also contend that we should have a "living Constitution" rather than be bound by "the dead hand of the Framers." These slogans prove nothing. An interpretivist approach would not constrict government processes; on the contrary, it would ensure that issues are freely subject to the workings of the democratic process. Moreover, to the extent that the Constitution might profit from revision, the amendment process of Article V provides the only constitutional means. Judicial amendment under a noninterpretivist approach is simply an unconstitutional usurpation.
The above underlined is what I believe George Washington was referring to.
This is a rather lengthy article written by a true Constitutional Scholar.
Quote:
J. Clifford Wallace
J. Clifford Wallace is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Formerly a district judge and a San Diego lawyer, Judge Wallace has held numerous positions as an officer of state and local bar associations and legal committees. He has taught at Brigham Young University, the University of San Diego and California Western School of Law. He is the author of more than a dozen law review essays and a special study commissioned by the Chief Justice of the United States on the future of the judiciary. He travels frequently in Europe, the Middle East and the Far East as a lecturer and consultant to foreign judiciaries.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
) enough to withstand modern times, but no one can know what kind of organizing principles future citizens will require.