Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights > Gay and Lesbian Rights

Gay and Lesbian Rights Gay and Lesbian Political Rights Forum - For topics and discussions about LGBT


Thanks Tree54Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 13th, 2016, 06:47 PM   #61
Senior Member
 
Asimov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
It goes far beyond the Federalist Papers. The direct link to the Magna Carta, Coke, the Bible, English common law, etc. regarding the structure, and basis of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Bork made Biden look like someone who was kicked out of school for plagerism, which he was. The difference between the two was a living Constitution (Biden), which is antithetical to a written Constitution (Bork), and the rule of law (Bork), which is antithetical to a living Constitution (Biden).
Yes, our system is firmly rooted in British traditions, of which Hamilton and Madison were avid admirers, dating back to Magna Carta. That is true. You forgot Blackstone's commentaries, btw. But I also believe the Founders of the American system anticipated AND INTENDED that the Constitution they created would be flexible enough to adapt to changes over time. It is this kind of foresight that has allowed the system to expand and become more inclusive without having to be fundamentally changed and/or revised in its written form.

I believe that is why they included Article I, section 8, cl 18, to allow Congress to extend its reach when needed. It's why Hamilton argued against Jefferson and the Republicans that a National Bank was perfectly legal, because it was not expressly authorized by the Constitution but neither was it prohibited, despite the fact that the banking industry in America for nearly two centuries had been managed entirely by the States. It's why they included Articles V and VI, so that the Constitution could be amended as necessary and still be binding on States that voted against ratification.

If there is anything in our Federal System that the Founders might have not necessarily intended, it was the elevation of the Federal Courts to a position of equality with the other two branches, with the power to rule from the bench on matters pertaining to the Constitution. I think they may have "intended" the Court to rule strictly on civil matters and/or disputes between the other competing branches, NOT necessarily to have the power to strike down legislation and/or executive action as unconstitutional and void on their merits.

What do you think?
Thanks from waitingtables

Last edited by Asimov; January 13th, 2016 at 06:50 PM.
Asimov is offline  
Old January 13th, 2016, 07:28 PM   #62
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asimov View Post
Yes, our system is firmly rooted in British traditions, of which Hamilton and Madison were avid admirers, dating back to Magna Carta. That is true. You forgot Blackstone's commentaries, btw. But I also believe the Founders of the American system anticipated AND INTENDED that the Constitution they created would be flexible enough to adapt to changes over time. It is this kind of foresight that has allowed the system to expand and become more inclusive without having to be fundamentally changed and/or revised in its written form.

I believe that is why they included Article I, section 8, cl 18, to allow Congress to extend its reach when needed. It's why Hamilton argued against Jefferson and the Republicans that a National Bank was perfectly legal, because it was not expressly authorized by the Constitution but neither was it prohibited, despite the fact that the banking industry in America for nearly two centuries had been managed entirely by the States. It's why they included Articles V and VI, so that the Constitution could be amended as necessary and still be binding on States that voted against ratification.

If there is anything in our Federal System that the Founders might have not necessarily intended, it was the elevation of the Federal Courts to a position of equality with the other two branches, with the power to rule from the bench on matters pertaining to the Constitution. I think they may have "intended" the Court to rule strictly on civil matters and/or disputes between the other competing branches, NOT necessarily to have the power to strike down legislation and/or executive action as unconstitutional and void on their merits.

What do you think?
Solid assessment. I do not agree completely, but that is what make the world go 'round.

My mild disagreements:

The Ninth Amendment arose out of fear of the use of a broad interpretation of the necessary and proper clause, and Wilson expained its limitations.

The Constitution was protection against human nature as much as a governing document. Human nature hasn't changed. Also, the founders all were originalists as they stated that interpretation should always use the original intent.

I understand you are a living Constitution advocate and you have your reasons, and I respect that you do not cloak that ideology in some linguistic game and are upfront about it. It makes for an honest and civil debate. I am an originalist and I have my reasons and am also upfront about it. You understand the subject matter well and seem to have take a similar route as me to arrive where you are today regarding your understanding. Sometimes history and the law can be a Rorschach Test and we see what our subconscious compels us to see.
Thanks from Asimov

Last edited by Jimmyb; January 14th, 2016 at 07:39 PM.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old January 14th, 2016, 03:14 AM   #63
Senior Member
 
Asimov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Solid assessment. I do not agree completely, but that is what make the world to 'round.

My mild disagreements:

The Ninth Amendment arose out of fear of the use of a broad interpretation of the necessary and proper clause, and Wilson expaine its limitations.

The Constitution was protection against human nature as much as a governing document. Human nature hasn't changed. Also, the founders all were originalists as they stated that interpretation should always use the original intent.

I understand you are a living Constitution advocate and you have your reasons, and I respect that you do not cloak that ideology in some linguistic game and are upfront about it. It makes for an honest and civil debate. I am an originalist and I have my reasons and am also upfront about it. You understand the subject matter well and seem to have take a similar route as me to arrive where you are today regarding your understanding. Sometimes history and the law can be a Rorschach Test and we see what our subconscious compels us to see.
Very true.
Thanks from Jimmyb
Asimov is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights > Gay and Lesbian Rights

Tags
judicial activism, real, talk



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Whew!!!! Talk About "Cold-Blooded"!!! Medicine Man Current Events 1 May 8th, 2014 03:41 PM
It's time for "Real Change" WE start at the top, and "trickle down"! intangible child Current Events 0 February 14th, 2014 09:03 AM
The Real Story Behind Bill Gates And "Death Panels" Dude111 Healthcare 1 October 3rd, 2010 08:17 PM
CT Gov. denounces judicial activism on homosexual marriage garysher Gay and Lesbian Rights 166 October 18th, 2008 03:31 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.