›
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE

People who think making the government bigger will cause corruption.

2

Comments

  • DiamonnesDiamonnes
    Commando: Referring to the Depression, yeah?
  • CommandoDudeCommandoDude
    CRIMINAL SCUM!
    Predeppression. We had a word for it. 'The Guilded Age'
  • Tnu1138Tnu1138
    That's it we're fucked people are dying like animals because the y're complyign like domesticated animals compliance is the first step on the road.
  • CommandoDudeCommandoDude
    CRIMINAL SCUM!
    /rollseyes

    You act like we live in North Korea.
  • VorpyVorpy
    ☭Unstoppable Sex Goddess☭
    That's it we're fucked people are dying like animals because the y're
    complyign like domesticated animals compliance is the first step on the
    road.
  • DiamonnesDiamonnes
    Or, rather, late industrial era. Sorry, two arguments at once aren't good for the vocabulary. XD

    TNU: The road to what? Complying to one thing doesn't mean you'll comply to the next. I comply that police can search my house if they have a warrant, but I don't comply that they can burn it down to expose the weed that may be (and by may be I mean definitely is) inside.

    There is a line.


  • Tnu1138Tnu1138
    Right I concede sorry Vorpy.
  • DiamonnesDiamonnes
    >Cannot see video

    >Assumes it's something extremely powerfully worded and not something inane and not part of the topic at all

    >Hopes this illusion isn't broken
  • glennmagusharveyglennmagusharvey
    Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    Uh, there is no government conspiracy to take away your freedoms and institute totalitarianism, sir.

    If anything, it can't simultaneously be inefficient and stupid yet somehow able to maintain a conspiracy so well there's been no damning evidence of it.  So the slippery slope argument does not apply.
  • glennmagusharveyglennmagusharvey
    Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    Also it seems that you and turtle are not just strict constructionists, but originalists.
  • Tnu1138Tnu1138
    originalists i'm not aware of the philosiphy? Could you pelase explain or link to an explanation? I have to admit I disagreee completely with Turtles social views being on the religious authoritarian right.
  • DiamonnesDiamonnes
    NEWSFLASH:

    Constitution written in Seventeen hundred seventy-six AD.

    Year is two-thousand and eleven AD.

    Over two hundred years old.

    Something over two centuries old cannot possibly be completely relevant.
  • Tnu1138Tnu1138
    You ahve to uphold the enti er thign or you leave it open to violate the whole thing.
  • glennmagusharveyglennmagusharvey
    Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    And that's why they left interpretation up to people of the future.  And even added a provision for amendments.

    They knew it was a work in progress.

    @Tnu and Turtle: "originalist" meaning "original meaning of the Constitution, no items, final destination".
  • DiamonnesDiamonnes
    edited 2011-05-09 00:23:14
    Solution is not to let the government stagnate.

    EDIT NINJA

    Glenn: Precisely. A government which does not evolve is a government which must be overthrown every few decades. The founding fathers knew this. To think that the constitution must be interpreted the same way for three hundred years is to explicitly miss the point of the constitution.
  • Tnu1138Tnu1138
    Yes I am an originalist if the Constitution needs to change it will like you said Glenn
  • glennmagusharveyglennmagusharvey
    Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    "it will"?

    It doesn't change by itself.  Its interpretation and content can change when people change their interpretation of it and change its content.
  • Tnu1138Tnu1138
    It changes through amendment as you stated above.
  • DiamonnesDiamonnes
    If every interpretation were made as an amendment the document would contradict itself enough to murder any sissy normal paradox with its bare hands.
  • ForzareForzare
    Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day.
    Or by precedent set by the Supreme Court, when a passage can be reinterpreted in the context of modern times.
  • glennmagusharveyglennmagusharvey
    edited 2011-05-09 00:27:56
    Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    You can thank Marbury v. Madison for that one.

    Lol, Marbury v. Madison: The premier example of "judicial activism".  Yep, that tradition has been around since...since the founding fathers were still around.
  • Tnu1138Tnu1138
    does it mention that anywhere in the Constitution or subsequent amendment?
  • glennmagusharveyglennmagusharvey
    Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    Does what mention what?

    No; judicial review isn't mentioned in the Constitution.  Then-Chief Justice John Marshall came up with it in a brilliant (and epic) legal maneuver.

    Yes, the ability of the Supreme Court to declare stuff unconstitutional is itself not written into the Constitution.
  • glennmagusharveyglennmagusharvey
    edited 2011-05-09 00:39:36
    Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    Oh by the way, courtesy link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

    The guy was a genius.  He gets mad points for effectively flipping off BOTH William Marbury AND James Madison SIMULTANEOUSLY.
  • Tnu1138Tnu1138
    and the ability to declare people suspected terorists and violate their righs as such isn't in the constitution eith er so according to your logic the government should bed allowed to do that?
  • ForzareForzare
    Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day.
    So, without Judicial Review, how would we strike down unconstitutional laws?
  • DiamonnesDiamonnes
    We wouldn't, which is why it exists.
  • ForzareForzare
    Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day.
    Exactly.
  • Tnu1138Tnu1138
    you make a valid point did they make a means of of striking down unconstitutional law in the constiftuttion itself I havn't been able to fidn anything.
  • glennmagusharveyglennmagusharvey
    edited 2011-05-09 00:47:26
    Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    > and the ability to declare people suspected terorists and violate their
    righs as such isn't in the constitution eith er so according to your
    logic the government should bed allowed to do that?

    No, I never said that.

    In fact, the Constitution specifically prohibits that:

    "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
    crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
    cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
    actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put
    in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case
    to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
    property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
    taken for public use, without just compensation."

    The text of Amendment 5.

    > you make a valid point did they make a means of of striking down
    unconstitutional law in the constiftuttion itself I havn't been able to
    fidn anything.

    No, they didn't, nor did they ever create an amendment for it.
Sign In or Register to comment.