Obama says the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties

[Walruz996]

I love when people throw around socialist and liberal like they are curse words.

Even better when people use the term Democrat like that. I know this one guy...

[Luff]

Yea i think I've come across that one guy a few times. Said something about Mac-owners being democrats.

[GnarKill1029]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
oh ed

close mindedness kills

[Buhda-monk]

tell him what he's won...

alex gives the answers, not the questions.
GOSH!!!

[waddsworth]

A tax cut for the wealthy is just as much a change in the distribution of wealth as an increase for the wealthy is.

What??? How is earned income "distribution"?

[DjMattyD]

the bottom line is obama is very far from a socialist, he's a viable cantidate for pres. who only believes in a half assed version of universal health care, when people say that dumb shit just reassure them that hes a cappi just like the rest of em...

Universal Healthcare means healthcare for everyone and does not address how.
Theoretically anyone should be for Universal Healthcare.
I think what you meant to say was Nationalized or Socialized Healthcare.

It is a very important distinction that a lot of people fail to make.

[Dzan]

What??? How is earned income "distribution"?

a shift in the burden of taxation is a re-distribution of wealth.

[S. EvarMI]

ok regardless of all this socialist shit...the title is correct


not as in he said that shit more like that shit he said is true. There are plenty of arguments that says the Constitution fracked up big time and you can look at the history of this nation and the battles in the Supreme Court to figure that out.

[narwhal]

ok regardless of all this socialist shit...the title is correct


not as in he said that shit more like that shit he said is true. There are plenty of arguments that says the Constitution fracked up big time and you can look at the history of this nation and the battles in the Supreme Court to figure that out.

Exactly.

Time to change your fracking SN back...

[outsider-80]

One more example of how Obama can do nothing wrong in the eyes of his blind followers.

[outsider-80]

the reason they're afraid is because he wants to tax the ultra-rich to give the rest of us a bit of breathing room, god forbid

Do you really believe that a democrat will only tax the ultra rich? Obama has said that he will only tax people making 250,000/year, then 200,000/year and now Biden recently said 150,000/year (which is hardly "ultra rich"). Who knows what the true figure will be when it's said and done.

[Dzan]

One more example of how Obama can do nothing wrong in the eyes of his blind followers.

There is a quote function. If you had used it, we would have known what point you are responding to. Since we have no idea we can't debate you at all, which is probably the point. Weird. Who would have thought intentional stupidity would be used as a debate tactic.

[S. EvarMI]

One more example of how Obama can do nothing wrong in the eyes of his blind followers.

I really hope this wasnt aimed at me

[DjMattyD]

I really hope this wasnt aimed at me

I do.

[Utah]

ok regardless of all this socialist shit...the title is correct


not as in he said that shit more like that shit he said is true. There are plenty of arguments that says the Constitution fracked up big time and you can look at the history of this nation and the battles in the Supreme Court to figure that out.

The Constitution is fracked up big time, or the Supreme Court Analysis of it is fracked up big time...

[S. EvarMI]

except most of the real fracked up supreme court cases use a strictly textual reading of the Constitution to come to their conclusion.


I am not talking about shit like Roe; I am talking more like Dred Scott, Plessy, the Civil Rights cases, etc.

[samcollett]

We are all still waiting on the argument for it.

We are already a socialist country. We have socialized healthcare (medicare), socialized pensions (social security), socialized highways (interstates), socialized education, socialized military, socialized firemen, socialized police, socialized water provision and in many placed socialized electricity.

Get over pejorative labels.

it is impossible to be a completely socialist country with a mixed economy.

[Utah]

except most of the real fracked up supreme court cases use a strictly textual reading of the Constitution to come to their conclusion.


I am not talking about shit like Roe; I am talking more like Dred Scott, Plessy, the Civil Rights cases, etc.

Its still interpretation... And lets be honest, the Judges are only human...

Just an example, the recent 2nd amendment rulling came back at 5 - 4 speaks volumes...

[narwhal]

Even the founding fathers saw each amendment different.

It's crazy to say there is one solid definition for each amendment.

[S. EvarMI]

no it really isnt; if you use interpretation then its not strictly looking at the text. If you just read the words and if the words say "x" then it means "x." Otherwise if you say "well I think 'x' really means 'y'" then you arent looking purely at the text.

Your argument is a fallacy. The 4 who think one thing might not be looking at the text. They could be using different styles of interpretation which many do. Some use intent of framers, some use history, some use sociological jurisprudence, stare decisis, etc. Even the 5 who are voting the other way may also be using different means to come to their conclusion. I read a case with 5 different opinions and it was because each justice used a different form to come to their conclusion.

The text leaves much to be desired and may FORCE interpretation but then that is still a flaw in the Constitution. The cases I referenced are when a justice looks purely at the text and says "well even though this may be how I feel, or the public feels, the text doesnt allow Congress to pass this law so sorry its 86'd."

[Utah]

no it really isnt; if you use interpretation then its not strictly looking at the text. If you just read the words and if the words say "x" then it means "x." Otherwise if you say "well I think 'x' really means 'y'" then you arent looking purely at the text.

Your argument is a fallacy. The 4 who think one thing might not be looking at the text. They could be using different styles of interpretation which many do. Some use intent of framers, some use history, some use sociological jurisprudence, stare decisis, etc. Even the 5 who are voting the other way may also be using different means to come to their conclusion. I read a case with 5 different opinions and it was because each justice used a different form to come to their conclusion.

The text leaves much to be desired and may FORCE interpretation but then that is still a flaw in the Constitution. The cases I referenced are when a justice looks purely at the text and says "well even though this may be how I feel, or the public feels, the text doesnt allow Congress to pass this law so sorry its 86'd."

Regardless of how they are reaching the conclusions they are reaching, wouldn't that still be interpretation? Sure it may not be purely interpreation based on the words alone, but it is still interpretation. Afterall, isn't that their job, to INTERPRET the constitution...

[S. EvarMI]

If you agree with Marshall then yes it is their job, but other justices would say their job is to read the Constitution and defer to the discretion of the Congress because they are elected by the people.

There is a fine line between textual analysis of the Constitution and interpretation, but there is an almost purely objective way to read the text. My point is that saying its the "interpretation of the justices" that is off is to ignore those justices that just strictly look at the text and write every opinion in that manner. The vicious cases I cited were mostly when justices just looked to the text of the Constitution and found no remedy and said "well sorry but youre fracked"

[Utah]

If you agree with Marshall then yes it is their job, but other justices would say their job is to read the Constitution and defer to the discretion of the Congress because they are elected by the people.

There is a fine line between textual analysis of the Constitution and interpretation, but there is an almost purely objective way to read the text. My point is that saying its the "interpretation of the justices" that is off is to ignore those justices that just strictly look at the text and write every opinion in that manner. The vicious cases I cited were mostly when justices just looked to the text of the Constitution and found no remedy and said "well sorry but youre fracked"

Thats what bothers me. Their should be no Congress consideration or "the people" consideration taken into account. Their role is to interpret the Constitution...

[narwhal]

Still it's a government of the people.

By notion they represent the people wants at the same time though.

The constitution can change by change demanded by the citizens. (elect a president that will put more of any side on the branch)

By your view we would still have slavery.

[Utah]

Still it's a government of the people.

By notion they represent the people wants at the same time though.

The constitution can change by change demanded by the citizens. (elect a president that will put more of any side on the branch)

By your view we would still have slavery.

Actually, the Constitution never mentions the words slave or slavery...

[S. EvarMI]

and because it doesnt, it led to many justices using their own interpretation of those clauses that implied slavery and led to more slavery.

[narwhal]

Utah,

Don't play stupid.

We all understand the clauses, which dictated the allowance of slavery. It was the sour apple in the basket but it was in there.

[Utah]

Utah,

Don't play stupid.

We all understand the clauses, which dictated the allowance of slavery. It was the sour apple in the basket but it was in there.

Wasn't it our founding fathers who had the foresight to count each slave as 3/5ths of a person to ensure that southern states (who wanted to count each slave as a whole person) wouldn't have increased represntation?

[narwhal]

The majority of them foresaw a Civil War.

There was no foresight it was the compromise and there would be two more...which just kept delaying the inevitable.

[narwhal]

My point was the consitition is a living document.

And the majority of them saw it that way. (not saying all but the leading minds did)

Even ol' TJ saw far more radical views...which he kept supressed most believe but Generational constitutional government would be the devil to you Utah.

[waddsworth]

a shift in the burden of taxation is a re-distribution of wealth.

Sorry to interrupt another discussion currently taking place in this thread, but I have to address this. What you are saying makes absolutely no sense. How can you "re-distribute" something that was never distributed to you in the first place?

[Dzan]

Sorry to interrupt another discussion currently taking place in this thread, but I have to address this. What you are saying makes absolutely no sense. How can you "re-distribute" something that was never distributed to you in the first place?

If the highest marginal tax rate is 36% for your whole life, and then it suddenly becomes 33%, you are being given money that would otherwise have gone to the public fisc. Make no mistake about it, when Bush cut taxes, the % of wealth in the country controlled by the top 5% wealthiest citizens increased dramatically.

This is an example of why the Bush tax cuts were so dumb. When times are good the temptation is to cut taxes, but times may not always be good and a future emergency could arise where those revenues are needed again. And you can be sure if that is true it will be a lot harder to re-implement the taxes than it was to cut them. The longer the tax cuts exist the more likely people feel they are entitled to them being permanent and start to believe that they are entitled to that rate.