Been a long weekend of computer failures, miss me?
The Supreme Court's only function is to compare the case in front of them to what the Constitution says. Not to create new meanings or completely new rights or government powers.
Agreed, and if you can site specific examples where this has been the case, I'd like to know what they are.
The Supreme Court's only function is to compare the case in front of them to what the Constitution says. Not to create new meanings or completely new rights or government powers.... See my response above concerning the SCOTUS/Judicial branch and it's role re: the Constitution. It's purely to judge the cases before them as they relate to a plain reading of the Constitution. The Judicial does not have the power to change the Constitution, and has been engaged over the last ~100 years in doing end-runs around the Constitution through creative interpretation/judicial activism.
Ok, so you're making a distinction between regular interpretation and "creative" interpretation. Again, I'd like some specific examples of what you think amounts to SCOTUS overstepping their bounds.
No offense meant here, but you seem to be either un- or misinformed about the Progressive movement. You should do some Googling on the Progressive movement as it's fascinating. They even hijacked the Liberal movement as cover when they found themselves a failed ideology and were discredited in the first half of the 20th century.
You're right, there were aspects to which I was not aware, but you seem to hold a rather slanted view of the whole thing yourself.
Progressives as in the widely-recognized political ideology believe that the country needs to "progress" *past* the Constitution, as they view it as an obstacle to implementing national change away from capitalism, free markets, limited government, and individual freedoms in order to create a society based on prioritizing the needs of the collective as opposed to the individual.
That seems to me less "progressive" and more straight "communist." Most of the progressive movement that I've read up on, at your suggestion, seems a response to industry becoming the dominant force of everyday life; the social progressives came about to counter the industrial progressives.
Progressivism (capital "P"), from the left or right, isn't necessarily bad (or good). Harm comes from the extremist elements. They make the most noise, get the most attention, and have the worst ideas.
That's about all I've got right now, need to recharge the fuel cells. Catch you on the flip.
The Constitution was designed to be anything *but* flexible, as the tortuous procedure for amending the Constitution highlights,
That is not correct. If it was intended to be rigid, why have an amendment process at all? It would simply have been carved in stone and prefaced with "This is the immutable law of the land." They knew they couldn't foresee all possible futures, yet they had to account for it somehow. Ergo, the Constitution was made malleable.
The Constitution was intentionally made difficult to change, needing overwhelming support by the States and the people to amend.
True. It was made this way to ensure that any change would have at least a substantial majority in favor of it, hopefully preventing changes that would harm the greater good. If amending had been made a simple process, the entire document would be rendered meaningless in short order (which, I take, you assert is what has already happened, not that I entirely disagree).
Once you start down the path of looking at the Constitution as a "living document" with alternate, non-intuitive & non-literal interpretations of clauses and articles, or just plain ignoring certain parts for conveniences' sake, then it becomes subject to the interpretive whims of whomever is in power,
Yes. That is by design. Not ignoring parts, that isn't right. But making interpretations is part of that flexibility in the face of unforeseen circumstances. Sure, interpretations will change, because the world will change, because attitudes change, because things happen.
... which is precisely what has taken this country off-path since the time of Wilson, T. Roosevelt, and the other Progressive leaders from the '20s-'30s to present.
Path? What path? The path of industrialists carving up the country amongst themselves?
It was the fact that for the first roughly 100 years we *didn't* treat the Constitution as a "living document" open to wide interpretation and "work-arounds" as we treat it today that made this country the greatest, most free country on the planet.
Which is why over half of the amendments that have ever been made were done within that first century, with the first ten or so done concurrently? And when you say "most free country on the planet" are you only counting the ones that allowed slavery?
It's just like Animal Farm where the rules began to slowly morph in small incremental steps while nobody said anything about it until the pigs in charge were indistinguishable from the humans they'd replaced and "some animals are more equal than others". Animal Farm was written by Orwell as a warning against communism & socialism in Europe and the Progressive movement in the US.
And 1984 was a heart-warming tale of what happens to a society that gives up precious liberty for illusory security, written as warning against fascism and authoritarianism. I think Orwell was more concerned with the fact that power corrupts.
Changing the Constitution by either flat-out ignoring certain parts or using "creative interpretation" rather than going through the procedures specifically put in place as safeguards is like Homer Simpson ignoring/reinterpreting reactor safety procedures & rules so he can be the first to get to the donuts in the break-room. It's just *not* going to end well.
"Creative interpretation" of the Constitution, as you put it, is part and parcel the job description of a Supreme Court Justice, and to a lesser extent, all federal judges, who are all part of those procedural safeguards you mention, provided by the very same Constitution. Granted, they might not be doing their job as effectively as they might, since we still have abominations like the PATRIOT Act in effect, which ignores several parts of the Constitution.
So you're basically saying that government sucks because people suck, which I totally agree with, and my utopian fantasy is exactly that, which I've acknowledged and accepted, that's why it's a utopian fantasy. I understand history, better than most I think, and I've grown weary of the repeating patterns not only through the centuries but even in my own lifetime. Humanity's memory seems to have shrunk to the order of months and is continually decreasing. The decline of the country mirrors the fall of pretty much every empire that has existed in the last 2000+ years. Nothing changes because it's all the same. It really makes me wonder how we got this far and how we're still here at all.
Our Constitution and government were designed to be limited but flexible, which worked well for the first century or so. However, I feel the framers gave people too much credit for altruism. Too much of that flexibility has been misused to pervert and corrupt the original intentions of the Founders. Or maybe that's just another myth, maybe they were right bastards and this is how they wanted it.
It just drives me fucking nuts to look around and see things as they are, knowing it could be better. Individuals are capable of so much more than the masses would lead one to believe. Yes, I'm railing against human nature. Futility exemplified.
I'm not trying to backpedal, I've just come down off the bad mood I had been in at the time. I was looking to do some flamebaiting, you turned it back on me; well played. I enjoy doing that myself. Also, I apologize for the name calling, but I usually only resort to ad hominem when I feel I've been pigeonholed. And my subsequent comment was intended as a joke.
I think we agree more than we disagree, fundamentally anyway. It's refreshing to spar with someone who does know what they're talking about, happens so seldom on the internets.
If I seem self-contradictory, just chalk it up to being human. I try to rise above, but it's impossible.
What the hell was this thread about? Oh yeah, wind power.
Apologies for calling you a "shit-flinging troglodyte," I'm sure I don't know you well enough to make that assertion. I'll roll it back to "poo-tossing monkey-man." Have a nice day.
I love how assholes like you try to make "progressive" and "elitist" into dirty words. If being intelligent makes me "elitist" and giving a shit about the whole world instead of just the tiny meaningless corner I inhabit makes me "progressive" so be it. If that's how I am distinguished from shit-flinging troglodytes like yourself, I couldn't be more thrilled.
My personal dream is that humanity would will itself to a higher consciousness that doesn't NEED any kind of government oversight. That people stop being greedy, self-important, self-righteous, imbeciles and CAN make logical, rational decisions about their own lives that don't fuck over at least one other person. Yes, I have contempt for people as they are now, and you, sir, have just demonstrated why.
And for the record, I don't listen to Air America or read DailyKOS, CNN might as well be staffed by monkeys, MSNBC are just as fucking moronic as Fox News, Arianna Huffington is a cunt, and I never thought my parents were morons.
But it must be nice to have that super-human insight of yours, that enables you to pierce down into someone's core based on an off-hand comment made on an internet forum. I'm sure it will serve you well.
Too true, like Beck himself. He's no different than Limbaugh at his peak in the 90s. There will always be some irrationality-spouting, fear mongering chode on the air trying to incite panic from the lesser morons of the world. Personally I find it difficult to believe anyone actually listens to the guy for anything beyond simple laughs.
proposed to deny federal clean energy grants to wind developers that buy blades, turbines and other components from abroad.
Hey, if you want money from Uncle Sam, you gotta play the game the way it's played. You're always welcome to secure private financing and build it any way you please.
too bad we outsourced most of our manufacturing years ago
Re:Reminds me of broadband internet in the beginni
on
Gas Wants To Kill the Wind
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
there's a lot of that kind of stuff in the "real America," Glenn Beck has based his career on fueling it
Science, logic, critical thinking, simple human decency...notice that the 21st Century seems to be going the opposite direction all the popular old sci-fi said it would? We should sue.
should make a law where any patent has to be developed for actual use by the patenter or official licensee within one year of being granted, otherwise it's revoked, but this is the least of what's wrong with the stupid over-litigated patent system in this idiotic fucking country
Slashdot Mirror
a fact of nature can hardly be called hubris, some people are simply more advanced, far too few if you ask me
you could probably write a script to do that for you
foolish ninja, schoolchildren don't have the same rights as real people, something I railed against when I was one
if the teens are stupid it's because the parents are too
seems to me they're trying to make up a crime where none exists
yeah, and that's why the machines win
Been a long weekend of computer failures, miss me?
The Supreme Court's only function is to compare the case in front of them to what the Constitution says. Not to create new meanings or completely new rights or government powers.
Agreed, and if you can site specific examples where this has been the case, I'd like to know what they are.
The Supreme Court's only function is to compare the case in front of them to what the Constitution says. Not to create new meanings or completely new rights or government powers. ... See my response above concerning the SCOTUS/Judicial branch and it's role re: the Constitution. It's purely to judge the cases before them as they relate to a plain reading of the Constitution. The Judicial does not have the power to change the Constitution, and has been engaged over the last ~100 years in doing end-runs around the Constitution through creative interpretation/judicial activism.
Ok, so you're making a distinction between regular interpretation and "creative" interpretation. Again, I'd like some specific examples of what you think amounts to SCOTUS overstepping their bounds.
No offense meant here, but you seem to be either un- or misinformed about the Progressive movement. You should do some Googling on the Progressive movement as it's fascinating. They even hijacked the Liberal movement as cover when they found themselves a failed ideology and were discredited in the first half of the 20th century.
You're right, there were aspects to which I was not aware, but you seem to hold a rather slanted view of the whole thing yourself.
Progressives as in the widely-recognized political ideology believe that the country needs to "progress" *past* the Constitution, as they view it as an obstacle to implementing national change away from capitalism, free markets, limited government, and individual freedoms in order to create a society based on prioritizing the needs of the collective as opposed to the individual.
That seems to me less "progressive" and more straight "communist." Most of the progressive movement that I've read up on, at your suggestion, seems a response to industry becoming the dominant force of everyday life; the social progressives came about to counter the industrial progressives.
Progressivism (capital "P"), from the left or right, isn't necessarily bad (or good). Harm comes from the extremist elements. They make the most noise, get the most attention, and have the worst ideas.
That's about all I've got right now, need to recharge the fuel cells. Catch you on the flip.
The Constitution was designed to be anything *but* flexible, as the tortuous procedure for amending the Constitution highlights,
That is not correct. If it was intended to be rigid, why have an amendment process at all? It would simply have been carved in stone and prefaced with "This is the immutable law of the land." They knew they couldn't foresee all possible futures, yet they had to account for it somehow. Ergo, the Constitution was made malleable.
The Constitution was intentionally made difficult to change, needing overwhelming support by the States and the people to amend.
True. It was made this way to ensure that any change would have at least a substantial majority in favor of it, hopefully preventing changes that would harm the greater good. If amending had been made a simple process, the entire document would be rendered meaningless in short order (which, I take, you assert is what has already happened, not that I entirely disagree).
Once you start down the path of looking at the Constitution as a "living document" with alternate, non-intuitive & non-literal interpretations of clauses and articles, or just plain ignoring certain parts for conveniences' sake, then it becomes subject to the interpretive whims of whomever is in power,
Yes. That is by design. Not ignoring parts, that isn't right. But making interpretations is part of that flexibility in the face of unforeseen circumstances. Sure, interpretations will change, because the world will change, because attitudes change, because things happen.
... which is precisely what has taken this country off-path since the time of Wilson, T. Roosevelt, and the other Progressive leaders from the '20s-'30s to present.
Path? What path? The path of industrialists carving up the country amongst themselves?
It was the fact that for the first roughly 100 years we *didn't* treat the Constitution as a "living document" open to wide interpretation and "work-arounds" as we treat it today that made this country the greatest, most free country on the planet.
Which is why over half of the amendments that have ever been made were done within that first century, with the first ten or so done concurrently? And when you say "most free country on the planet" are you only counting the ones that allowed slavery?
It's just like Animal Farm where the rules began to slowly morph in small incremental steps while nobody said anything about it until the pigs in charge were indistinguishable from the humans they'd replaced and "some animals are more equal than others". Animal Farm was written by Orwell as a warning against communism & socialism in Europe and the Progressive movement in the US.
And 1984 was a heart-warming tale of what happens to a society that gives up precious liberty for illusory security, written as warning against fascism and authoritarianism. I think Orwell was more concerned with the fact that power corrupts.
Changing the Constitution by either flat-out ignoring certain parts or using "creative interpretation" rather than going through the procedures specifically put in place as safeguards is like Homer Simpson ignoring/reinterpreting reactor safety procedures & rules so he can be the first to get to the donuts in the break-room. It's just *not* going to end well.
"Creative interpretation" of the Constitution, as you put it, is part and parcel the job description of a Supreme Court Justice, and to a lesser extent, all federal judges, who are all part of those procedural safeguards you mention, provided by the very same Constitution. Granted, they might not be doing their job as effectively as they might, since we still have abominations like the PATRIOT Act in effect, which ignores several parts of the Constitution.
...my true-conservative and Cons
I've forgotten what we're arguing about...
So you're basically saying that government sucks because people suck, which I totally agree with, and my utopian fantasy is exactly that, which I've acknowledged and accepted, that's why it's a utopian fantasy. I understand history, better than most I think, and I've grown weary of the repeating patterns not only through the centuries but even in my own lifetime. Humanity's memory seems to have shrunk to the order of months and is continually decreasing. The decline of the country mirrors the fall of pretty much every empire that has existed in the last 2000+ years. Nothing changes because it's all the same. It really makes me wonder how we got this far and how we're still here at all.
Our Constitution and government were designed to be limited but flexible, which worked well for the first century or so. However, I feel the framers gave people too much credit for altruism. Too much of that flexibility has been misused to pervert and corrupt the original intentions of the Founders. Or maybe that's just another myth, maybe they were right bastards and this is how they wanted it.
It just drives me fucking nuts to look around and see things as they are, knowing it could be better. Individuals are capable of so much more than the masses would lead one to believe. Yes, I'm railing against human nature. Futility exemplified.
I'm not trying to backpedal, I've just come down off the bad mood I had been in at the time. I was looking to do some flamebaiting, you turned it back on me; well played. I enjoy doing that myself. Also, I apologize for the name calling, but I usually only resort to ad hominem when I feel I've been pigeonholed. And my subsequent comment was intended as a joke.
I think we agree more than we disagree, fundamentally anyway. It's refreshing to spar with someone who does know what they're talking about, happens so seldom on the internets.
If I seem self-contradictory, just chalk it up to being human. I try to rise above, but it's impossible.
What the hell was this thread about? Oh yeah, wind power.
Apologies for calling you a "shit-flinging troglodyte," I'm sure I don't know you well enough to make that assertion. I'll roll it back to "poo-tossing monkey-man." Have a nice day.
I love how assholes like you try to make "progressive" and "elitist" into dirty words. If being intelligent makes me "elitist" and giving a shit about the whole world instead of just the tiny meaningless corner I inhabit makes me "progressive" so be it. If that's how I am distinguished from shit-flinging troglodytes like yourself, I couldn't be more thrilled.
My personal dream is that humanity would will itself to a higher consciousness that doesn't NEED any kind of government oversight. That people stop being greedy, self-important, self-righteous, imbeciles and CAN make logical, rational decisions about their own lives that don't fuck over at least one other person. Yes, I have contempt for people as they are now, and you, sir, have just demonstrated why.
And for the record, I don't listen to Air America or read DailyKOS, CNN might as well be staffed by monkeys, MSNBC are just as fucking moronic as Fox News, Arianna Huffington is a cunt, and I never thought my parents were morons.
But it must be nice to have that super-human insight of yours, that enables you to pierce down into someone's core based on an off-hand comment made on an internet forum. I'm sure it will serve you well.
Too true, like Beck himself. He's no different than Limbaugh at his peak in the 90s. There will always be some irrationality-spouting, fear mongering chode on the air trying to incite panic from the lesser morons of the world. Personally I find it difficult to believe anyone actually listens to the guy for anything beyond simple laughs.
Certainly not with that attitude.
Where the hell do you live where the wind dies down in winter? I'm moving there
proposed to deny federal clean energy grants to wind developers that buy blades, turbines and other components from abroad.
Hey, if you want money from Uncle Sam, you gotta play the game the way it's played. You're always welcome to secure private financing and build it any way you please.
too bad we outsourced most of our manufacturing years ago
there's a lot of that kind of stuff in the "real America," Glenn Beck has based his career on fueling it
OMG something's NEW and DIFFERENT! PANIC!!!
if I could kill you with my mind, you'd already be dead, asshole. go fuck your mama
they'd embrace the new tech and get in on it, rather than trying to fight it
would you rather give the real instruments to people who don't know how to play? which is worse?
fuck him, another man is the one to look out for
Science, logic, critical thinking, simple human decency...notice that the 21st Century seems to be going the opposite direction all the popular old sci-fi said it would? We should sue.
sue them for causing you mental anguish over the fact that they have more money than you'll ever see
should make a law where any patent has to be developed for actual use by the patenter or official licensee within one year of being granted, otherwise it's revoked, but this is the least of what's wrong with the stupid over-litigated patent system in this idiotic fucking country
truth, and reality, as always, is somewhere in the middle
your troll is for shit douchebag, FAIL