Process vs. Outcome

ban basketball · 05-29-2008, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Chance174

How much money that you can give to a candidate is a form of free speech
I agree this shouldn't be happening and it is against the constitution in my opinion
That Supreme Courts should stop a vote count in a Presidential election
A little more complicated than you try to make it. Just admit it man HE LOST.
That Habeas Corpus should be suspended while our country is in a foreign war
Yes that usually happens in war...but i like how you put foreign in there. Now correct me if I'm wrong but haven't the last 5 wars at least been foreign wars.
That we should not follow international laws (Geneva Convention)
Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't a lot of the individuals responsible for this been repremanded? If you are referring to water boarding aren't they still determining if this falls under those?
That our own government should be planting stories in Iraqi newspapers to advance our own cause
Have you studied any history? If so you would know this is a common practice throughout history. Oh and not just by the US.
That government not obtain search warrants to eavesdrop on us
This is also more complicated than you try to make it out to be. I personally am on the fence with this one.
That protest provides "aid and comfort to our enemies."
are you trying to say it doesn't?

I'm not necessarily interested in whether or not we like the above acts/rulings, but rather, is this what the founders had in mind with "original intent?"

UGLY · 05-29-2008, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by ban basketball

Would these things fall under "original intent?"
How much money that you can give to a candidate is a form of free speech

That Supreme Courts should stop a vote count in a Presidential election

That Habeas Corpus should be suspended while our country is in a foreign war

That we should not follow international laws (Geneva Convention)

That our own government should be planting stories in Iraqi newspapers to advance our own cause

That government not obtain search warrants to eavesdrop on us

That protest provides "aid and comfort to our enemies."

1. The political parties are private oginizations and can use that money to promote the candidate of their choice. I dont agree with the act but considering they used to serve alcohol at election stands we have a few kinks still to work out. I don't think the founders would care all that much.

2. The only instance I can think of when Habeas Corpus was suspended was during the civil war and done so by Lincoln. Some argue it was wrong but I am not well versed on the issue so I shouldn't comment.

3. What vote count. Do you mean the popular vote count in Florida that has no constitutional bearing on the election in the first place. We don't elect Presidents by the popular vote it is done by electoral college which Bush won. In Federalist 68 Hamilton advocates for an electoral college.

4. I don't think that the founders would have us follow international law if it weakened our ability to protect ourselves. Following the Geneva convention has hurt our troops in the passed when the others countries aren't following the code.

5. Propaganda is a form of military strategy in a time of war and has been since the first humans clashed.

6. No the founders would not have like this action

7. No the founders would not have like this either and I will site the first amendment. But in the old days those protesters would have probably been arrested for treason and hung.

matclone · 05-29-2008, 06:00 PM

To add to the "orginalist" discussion, here's a column from a writer (and law professor) I don't always find favor with. I think all his points in this one are sound, however. And he should know:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/new...ible-exercise/

matclone · 05-29-2008, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by UGLY

4. I don't think that the founders would have us follow international law if it weakened our ability to protect ourselves. Following the Geneva convention has hurt our troops in the passed when the others countries aren't following the code.

It says right in the constitution that treaties are the law of the land. I don't know how more plain you can get. If orginalism doesn't support plain meaning, then maybe originalism doesn't really have a meaning--or maybe it's just a sword that is pulled out once in a while in the face of an unpopular decision.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...articlevi.html

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

UGLY · 05-29-2008, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by matclone

It says right in the constitution that treaties are the law of the land. I don't know how more plain you can get. If orginalism doesn't support plain meaning, then maybe originalism doesn't really have a meaning--or maybe it's just a sword that is pulled out once in a while in the face of an unpopular decision.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...articlevi.html

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

I didn't see where it said we must honor international treaties at the expense of our sovereignty or ability to protect our borders and people. After reading up on this I also came to find out that the clause was worded that way so that the peace treaties we had from the Revolution would remain in tact. I also read that a treaty has no power unless it has been ratified and enacted by congress unless it is a self enacting treaty. So there are obviously some protections to keep this from being an issue but there is a possibility that a treaty could threaten us if it was not thought through carefully. I still maintain that if we got into a situation we would use the amendment process and fix it.

matclone · 05-29-2008, 11:07 PM

One thing you look for in a good argument is consistency. If originalism is a good way (or the best way) to interpret a Constitution, then one would expect it to be applied consistently. If it isn't, then maybe the argument isn't so sound.

UGLY · 05-29-2008, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by matclone

One thing you look for in a good argument is consistency. If originalism is a good way (or the best way) to interpret a Constitution, then one would expect it to be applied consistently. If it isn't, then maybe the argument isn't so sound.

Clone there is nothing inconsistent about my argument. If we ran into a problem with your particular clause we would use the amendment process to fix it. That is what the amendment process is for, and we wouldn't have judges rule against what the constitution says to get to a desired outcome, hopefully.

skipster · 05-30-2008, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by matclone

One thing you look for in a good argument is consistency. If originalism is a good way (or the best way) to interpret a Constitution, then one would expect it to be applied consistently. If it isn't, then maybe the argument isn't so sound.

Very odd and out-of-character to see matclone write this.

FloggingSully · 05-30-2008, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by UGLY

That is what the amendment process is for, and we wouldn't have judges rule against what the constitution says to get to a desired outcome, hopefully.

When have judges ruled against the what the consitution says?

matclone · 05-30-2008, 11:32 AM

We're covering old ground here. It's clear to me that Ugly, in repeating this claim, has not really been open or receptive to any of the various comments that challenge that sort of view, and he is probably just looking for validation of a foregone conclusion.

Process vs. Outcome

Politics & Religion