Would you vote for this hypothetical candidate? [Archive]

iustitia

01-12-2014, 02:06 AM

Legislative:

Nullification of unconstitutional laws passed by Congress
Vetoing new unconstitutional bills
Threatening with arrest and treason charges legislators that blatantly ignore the Constitution

Judicial:

Nullification of unconstitutional decisions made by the Supreme Court and lower courts
Disregarding new unconstitutional judicial mandates and judicial activism
Threatening with arrest and treason charges judges that blatantly ignore the Constitution
Actively seeking the impeachment of said judges and/or abolition of activist courts

Executive:

Nullification of unconstitutional executive orders by Presidents
Refusal to enforce unconstitutional mandates from all branches
Threatening with arrest and treason charges executive officers that blatantly ignore the Constitution
Actively seeking the removal of said officers and/or abolition of imperious offices

Constitutional:

Promoting a constitutional amendment repealing the 16th Amendment, abolishing the federal income tax
Promoting a constitutional amendment repealing the 17th Amendment, abolishing the direct election of Senators to Congress
Promoting a constitutional amendment repealing the 23rd Amendment, abolishing the capital's influence in elections
Promoting a constitutional amendment imposing term limits on both houses of Congress to 12 years
Promoting a constitutional amendment imposing term limits on Supreme Court tenure to 12 years
Promoting a constitutional amendment granting Congress with the vote of three-fifths of both houses, or the States with three-fifths of legislatures, the power to overrule Court decisions
Promoting a constitutional amendment imposing balanced budgets, limiting spending to 17.5% of GDP and requiring a three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling
Promoting a constitutional amendment imposing tax restraints, limiting the power to tax to 15% of the average citizen's overall wealth, prohibiting other forms of taxation (except tariffs), and placing a deadline to file one's taxes one day before the next federal election
Promoting a constitutional amendment imposing and reaffirming the original intent of the Commerce Clause as prohibiting States from impeding commerce among other States
Promoting a constitutional amendment imposing strict limitations on Federal power to take private property
Promoting a constitutional amendment granting State legislatures the power to amend the Constitution without Congress, with support of two-thirds of the States and without convening a convention
Promoting a constitutional amendment granting States the power to override federal statues by majority vote in two-thirds of State legislatures
Promoting a constitutional amendment imposing oaths of poverty for legislators, limiting salaries to equal of minimum wage, repealing all federal benefits for legislators including pensions, and confiscation of all wealth earned during all terms served when cases of bribery, corruption or violations of oath are proven
Promoting a constitutional amendment imposing strict enforcement of national land and maritime borders and air space, as well as the removal from office and power those public servants which fail to do so
Promoting a constitutional amendment imposing and defining English as the language for federal government of the United States of America without exception
Promoting a constitutional amendment imposing limits to bureaucracy, to limit and sunset federal regulations and subject the existence of all federal departments to stand-alone re-authorization bills every three years
Promoting a constitutional amendment imposing limitations to militarism and Presidential war powers, limiting military action to immediate defensive actions and explicit declarations of war by Congress, in which Congress may not delegate its war declaration power to the President
Promoting a constitutional amendment imposing a prohibition on Congress delegating its coinage power to private central banks
Promoting a constitutional amendment imposing on all Congresspeople a mandate to cite the source of constitutionality of all legislation proposed and voted on and the immediate dismissal of bills proposed without such authority and the punishment of members proposing said measures
Promoting a constitutional amendment imposing a prohibition on the importation of foreign law into American courts and its consideration in cases reviewed by the Supreme Court

Foreign/military:

The promotion of peaceful trade with all nations, opening of diplomatic relations with all nations
Withdrawal from all entangling military and trade alliances and organizations, including but not limited to the UN, NATO, and NAFTA
Ending all foreign aid and funding of said previously mentioned organizations
The elimination of all foreign bases or the turning over of their operation to nations in which they exist
The withdrawal of all US troops not actively engaged in military action or support, an end to American troops in Germany, Japan, et al
Dismantling nuclear arsenal and promoting missile defense systems, promoting cooperation with all governments to eliminate the risk of nuclear warfare as a feasible option
Revive the constitutional option of issuing letters of marque and reprisal for attacks on American citizens at home or abroad from terrorism, crime or piracy
Dismantling the military-industrial complex and prohibiting the use of force to promote financial interests and world policing
Officially admit to and apologize for all overt and covert actions in other nations that violated their sovereignty or resulted in loss of life, limb, property, liberty or representation
Only engaging in military action in instances of immediate attack on ships, aircraft, embassies or territorial integrity, otherwise only with an explicate Congressional declaration of war with explicate goals
An end to treating the military as paid-for vacation to lost souls or welfare program for college students
Promoting a leaner national fighting force and promoting state militias as an alternative to a bloated, expensive standing army
Tightening standards for recruitment to include testing knowledge of American history, constitutional law, ethics and civic virtue
Discouraging career soldiering for the sake of life-long benefits, and eliminating unneeded positions
Actually supplying the benefits that are promised to those that enlist and doing so in an efficient manner
Automatically drafting the children of legislators and executive officers when war is declared

Domestic:

Liberally applying presidential pardons to citizens convicted of victimless crimes by unconstitutional federal statute and encouraging governors to do the same regarding state statutes
Ending the two-party system
Ending the enforcement of federal labor, energy, environmental, housing, food, drug and narcotic laws and policies
Ending the prison-industrial complex
Seeking personhood to be defined by Congress, as per the 14th Amendment, as beginning at that time in which a human body gains a heartbeat; Recognizing a mother's right to end pregnancies before personhood as defined by Congress, or in cases in which a mother's health or life are at risk
Eliminating tax discrepancies between citizens based on arbitrary rules or relationship statuses
Recognizing marriage at the federal level as a union between a man and woman, for the sake of federal consistency, while affirming federalism and state laws, constitutions and popular election decisions
Serious investigation into allegations of voter intimidation, civil rights violations, and corruption at all levels of government
Strict enforcement of national borders, cooperation with state and local government, while liberalizing freedom of movement
Easing the financial burden of applying for citizenship while maintaining or increasing the testing standards
Abolition of all unconstitutional federal bodies and programs including but not limited to departments and agencies, reorganization of the executive branch in a rational fashion; (federalize will refer to federalism and the return of responsibilities and powers to the States and People):

Executive Office of the President-

Abolition of the Council on Environmental Quality, Domestic Policy Council, Office of Administration, Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, Office of National AIDS Policy, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Office Of The First And Second Families, President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and the White House Military Office
Integration of any useful elements of the Council of Economic Advisers, National Economic Council, Office of Management and Budget, and United States Trade Representative into the Department of Treasury
Integration of any useful elements of the National Security Council, President's Intelligence Oversight Board, and President's Intelligence Advisory Board into the Department of Defense
Turn the White House into a homeless shelter or museum and govern from home living modestly, vowing a life of poverty and working for a living and without a lifelong pension

Department of Agriculture-

Abolish, unconstitutional
Redirect whatever remains of its $130 billion+ towards national debt
Any social welfare programs involving food and wildlife federalized to States

iustitia

01-12-2014, 02:08 AM

Department of Commerce-

Abolish, unconstitutional and/or redundant in the presence of the Treasury
Integration of any useful elements of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration into the Department of Defense and Navy
Integration of any useful elements of the Economics and Statistics Administration, Patent and Trademark Office, et al into the Department of Treasury
Redirect whatever remains of its $9 billion+ budget towards national debt

Department of Defense-

Integration of the Air Force back into the Army
Integration of redundant intelligence agencies
Abolish unneeded services, cut pork projects
Abolish the Unified Combatant Command system excluding Northern Command
Redirect whatever remains of its $550 billion+ budget towards national debt

Department of Education-

Abolish, unconstitutional
Integration of any useful elements of the Office for Civil Rights into the Department of Justice
Redirect whatever remains of its $19 billion+ budget towards national debt
Any social welfare programs involving education federalized to States

Department of Energy-

Abolish, unconstitutional
Integration of any useful elements of nuclear oversight, weaponry or fuel into Department of Defense
Redirect whatever remains of its $30 billion+ budget towards national debt
Any social welfare programs involving science or energy federalized to States

Department of Health and Human Services-

Abolish, unconstitutional
Integration of any useful elements of the Office of the Surgeon General, United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration into the Departments of the Departments of Defense and Justice
Redirect whatever remains of its $940 billion+ budget towards national debt
Any social welfare programs involving insurance or public health federalized to States

Department of Homeland Security-

Abolish, redundant
Integration of any useful elements of this huge lump of shit regarding immigration and borders into the Departments of Justice and Defense
Integration of any useful elements of this huge lump of shit regarding national defense into the Department of Defense
Break up of the Coast Guard into its predecessor services of securing the coasts and protecting lives, integrating the former back into the Department of Treasury and the latter back into the Departments of Defense and Navy
Redirect whatever remains of its $60 billion+ budget towards national debt

Department of United States Department of Housing and Urban Development-

Abolish, unconstitutional
Redirect whatever remains of its $48 billion+ budget towards national debt
Any social welfare programs involving housing federalized to States

Department of Interior-

Of the 507 million acres managed, only national landmarks and Indian Reservations should be managed, and the rest of that land should either be given to the States said land occupies or sold to the American people to help pay off the national debt
Any social welfare programs involving conservation and wildlife or public works federalized to States
Redirect whatever remains of its $20 billion+ budget towards national debt

Department of Justice-

Abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Drug Enforcement Administration, National Drug Intelligence Center, Office on Violence Against Women, Executive Office for Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, and any wasteful and/or redundant offices
Redirect whatever remains of its $27 billion+ budget towards national debt

Department of Labor-

Abolish, unconstitutional
Integration of any useful elements related to civil rights into the Department of Justice
Redirect whatever remains of its $13 billion+ budget towards national debt

Department of State-

Abolition of the National Council for the Traditional Arts, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Bureau of African Affairs, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Bureau of International Information Programs, and Bureau of Public Affairs
Integration of any useful elements of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, and Bureau of Consular Affairs into the Department of Justice
Redirect whatever remains of its $57 billion+ budget towards national debt

Department of Transportation-

Abolish, unconstitutional
Redirect whatever remains of its $79 billion budget towards national debt
Any social welfare programs involving transportation federalized to States

Department of Treasury-

Abolition of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Internal Revenue Service, Office of International Affairs, Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
Return to the gold standard
Redirect whatever remains of its $14 billion budget towards national debt

Department of Veterans Affairs-

Abolish, redundant
Integration of the National Cemetery Administration into the Department of Interior
Integration of the Veterans Benefits Administration and Office of Survivors Assistance into the Department of Treasury
Integration of the Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Service Organizations Liaison, Board of Veterans' Appeals, Center for Minority Veterans Center for Veterans Enterprise Center for Women Veterans Office of Advisory Committee Management into the Department of Defense
Integration of the Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication into the Department of Justice
Redirect whatever remains of its $78 billion+ budget towards national debt

Government agencies and corporations-

Abolish the unconstitutional Federal Reserve, return currency control to Congress and the Department of Treasury
Abolish the unconstitutional Social Security Administration, deliver a check to every person over 30 for the sum of all they've paid into the system, stop collecting from taxpayers, federalize the social welfare responsibility to the states and accept the debt from said checks as a consequence of central planning
Abolish, defund or federalize the African Development Foundation, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Corporation for National and Community Services, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Environmental Protection Agency, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Export-Import Bank of the United States, Farm Credit Administration, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Housing Finance Board, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Federal Maritime Commission, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, Federal Trade Commission, General Services Administration, Helen Keller National Center, Institute of Museum and Library Services, Inter-American Foundation, International Broadcasting Bureau, Merit Systems Protection Board, National Council on Disability, National Credit Union Administration, National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, National Labor Relations Board, National Mediation Board, National Science Foundation, United States Antarctic Program, United States Arctic Program, National Transportation Safety Board, Office of the Federal Coordinator - Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Panama Canal Commission, Peace Corps Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Railroad Retirement Board, Securities and Exchange Commission, Securities Investor Protection Corporation, Small Business Administration, and Tennessee Valley Authority
Integration of the Postal Regulatory Commission, Military Postal Service Agency, and United States Postal Service into a recreated Postal Department or into the Department of Interior
Integration of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration into either the Department of Defense or Interior
Integration of the National Archives and Records Administration, National Capital Planning Commission, and National Constitution Center into the Department of Interior
Integration of any useful elements of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency into the Department of Justice
Integration of any useful elements of the Selective Service System, Central Intelligence Agency, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and Nuclear Regulatory Commission into the Department of Defense
Integration of any useful elements of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, United States Agency for International Development, and United States International Trade Commission
End the funding for any other unconstitutional boards, commissions, agencies and government corporations
Redirect whatever remains of the billions of dollars in budgets towards national debt

Could this person get your vote compared to the typical corporatist candidates, or are they too extreme for you to compromise?

Mr Happy

01-12-2014, 02:37 AM

So you're an Anarchist...

iustitia

01-12-2014, 02:41 AM

You've got to be shitting me.

undine

01-12-2014, 04:26 AM

For what office, president? If so, no. I won't vote for someone that would act in such an unconstitutional manner.

iustitia

01-12-2014, 04:33 AM

Riiight. Remind me, which part of this is unconstitutional? Balanced budgets?

Mr Happy

01-12-2014, 04:44 AM

You've got to be shitting me.

Basically you want to get rid of every office in the land. That would be close to anarchy. It would have been better if you listed what your candidate WOULD do...

iustitia

01-12-2014, 04:51 AM

Basically you want to get rid of every office in the land. That would be close to anarchy. It would have been better if you listed what your candidate WOULD do...

Just so I'm not putting words in your mouth, you're saying the Constitution is anarchist?

Mr Happy

01-12-2014, 05:24 AM

Just so I'm not putting words in your mouth, you're saying the Constitution is anarchist?

Not really. What I'm really saying is that you are yet another poster who I've come across over the past 13 years who is convinced that the US Constitution is being abused by those in power. Cue, a to and fro between you and others about why the current US admin is abusing the piece of paper. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

I must say I do like the idea of term limits for your USSC.

iustitia

01-12-2014, 05:40 AM

Not really. What I'm really saying is that you are yet another poster who I've come across over the past 13 years who is convinced that the US Constitution is being abused by those in power. Cue, a to and fro between you and others about why the current US admin is abusing the piece of paper. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

I must say I do like the idea of term limits for your USSC.So you're acknowledging, now, that the use of the term anarchist was completely unwarranted and inaccurate?

And by "the piece of paper" you mean the supreme law of our land? That's... nice.

patrickt

01-12-2014, 06:31 AM

I would not vote for anyone whose platform starts with ignoring the Constitution. I didn't really get past those first few anti-Constitutional statements.

iustitia

01-12-2014, 06:32 AM

Which statements were those?

Mr Happy

01-12-2014, 06:47 AM

So you're acknowledging, now, that the use of the term anarchist was completely unwarranted and inaccurate?

And by "the piece of paper" you mean the supreme law of our land? That's... nice.

No, I am not;;

This is one of those smart arse threads whereby you think you are the be-all and end-all of what the US Constitution is or isn't. Already one other person who I am absolutely the opposite of when it comes to politics is calling you out.

Just spit out what your point is without all the song and dance...you might actually get a good thread going..

iustitia

01-12-2014, 06:54 AM

No, I am not;;

This is one of those smart arse threads whereby you think you are the be-all and end-all of what the US Constitution is or isn't.How so?

Already one other person who I am absolutely the opposite of when it comes to politics is calling you out.

Just spit out what your point is without all the song and dance...you might actually get a good thread going..I thought the topic was pretty self-explanatory. You're imagining ulterior motives it seems.

So just to be clear, though, is the Constitution anarchist or not?

Mr Happy

01-12-2014, 07:03 AM

Well, Anarchy does away with a lot of govt. You appear to want that. So you are on your way.

BTW, the current count is 6-1 against your guy. I assume you're the 1. What does that tell you?

iustitia

01-12-2014, 07:08 AM

Well, Anarchy does away with a lot of govt. You appear to want that. So you are on your way.

BTW, the current count is 6-1 against your guy. I assume you're the 1. What does that tell you?

Anarchy is no government. I'll ask again, is the Constitution anarchist?

As for the votes, they seem to be statists or foreigners so it's not surprising. I don't know for sure all their bents, so that's an oversimplification. It should be noted most didn't explain their votes other than blatantly saying they didn't read the platform or that it's "unconstitutional" without elaboration. Regardless, this is a poll for a reason. There's no point in making it if nobody votes differently. So what it tells me, is nothing. Yet.

Max Rockatansky

01-12-2014, 07:25 AM

Would you vote for this hypothetical candidate?Legislative:

Nullification of unconstitutional laws passed by Congress
Vetoing new unconstitutional bills
Threatening with arrest and treason charges legislators that blatantly ignore the ConstitutionNo. I try to avoid voting for idealistic idiots who have no common sense or other redeeming features.
Obviously such a candidate is either a liar or a fool who doesn't understand how our government works. If a law was unConstitutional, it would come up before SCOTUS.

Such a candidate also forgets that they'd be pissing in the wind against the other 434 members of the House or the other 99 members of the Senate. I'd rather vote for a candidate that has ideals, but whose ideals are tempered by practicality and reason. Someone who would work with his/her fellow Congressional representatives to achieve positive improvement rather than simply wasting taxpayer time and money trying to repeal bills which can never be repealed.

Max Rockatansky

01-12-2014, 07:29 AM

BTW, the current count is 6-1 against your guy. I assume you're the 1. What does that tell you?

Now 7 to 1 and you are correct, he is currently the one.

Currently the others are:
Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/659-Common),
kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/867-kilgram),
Mr Happy (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/720-Mr-Happy),
patrickt (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/348-patrickt),
Road Warrior (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/575-Road-Warrior),
sachem (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/974-sachem),
zelmo1234 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/588-zelmo1234)

Mr Happy

01-12-2014, 07:43 AM

Now 7 to 1 and you are correct, he is currently the one.

Currently the others are:
Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/659-Common),
kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/867-kilgram),
Mr Happy (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/720-Mr-Happy),
patrickt (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/348-patrickt),
Road Warrior (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/575-Road-Warrior),
sachem (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/974-sachem),
zelmo1234 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/588-zelmo1234)

And they are either foreigners (me) or statists - everyone else. not too sure how Zel or Patrick feel about being statists. I guess that means every debate I've had with those two since I joined is null and void. We are on the same side after all...joy, joy!!!!!

Max Rockatansky

01-12-2014, 08:11 AM

And they are either foreigners (me) or statists - everyone else. not too sure how Zel or Patrick feel about being statists. I guess that means every debate I've had with those two since I joined is null and void. We are on the same side after all...joy, joy!!!!!

Yes, I noticed. Why is it the closet anarchists always accuse anyone who even mentions a good point about government is labeled a statist?

As for the votes, they seem to be statists or foreigners so it's not surprising.

patrickt

01-12-2014, 08:35 AM

Which statements were those?

"Legislative:

Nullification of unconstitutional laws passed by Congress
Vetoing new unconstitutional bills
Threatening with arrest and treason charges legislators that blatantly ignore the Constitution
Judicial:

Nullification of unconstitutional decisions made by the Supreme Court and lower courts
Disregarding new unconstitutional judicial mandates and judicial activism
Threatening with arrest and treason charges judges that blatantly ignore the Constitution
Actively seeking the impeachment of said judges and/or abolition of activist courts
Executive:

Nullification of unconstitutional executive orders by Presidents
Refusal to enforce unconstitutional mandates from all branches
Threatening with arrest and treason charges executive officers that blatantly ignore the Constitution
Actively seeking the removal of said officers and/or abolition of imperious offices"

Who does that candidate think he is, King Barack Obama? He's going to decide when the Supreme Court is acting unconstitutionally? He's going to decide which laws are constitutional? He's going to decide when legislators are acting unconstitutionally?

What, pray tell, does the Constitution he wants to ignore have to say about that?

Peter1469

01-12-2014, 08:36 AM

Contrails

01-12-2014, 08:37 AM

Not even for dog catcher. Anyone exhibiting this lack of understanding on how our government functions shouldn't be anywhere near public office.

Peter1469

01-12-2014, 08:42 AM

Not even for dog catcher. Anyone exhibiting this lack of understanding on how our government functions shouldn't be anywhere near public office.

That is harsh. I supposed you disregard the concept of federalism.

Mainecoons

01-12-2014, 08:42 AM

Anybody who assumes our government functions shouldn't be anywhere near a ballot box.

:rofl:

nathanbforrest45

01-12-2014, 08:44 AM

Basically you want to get rid of every office in the land. That would be close to anarchy. It would have been better if you listed what your candidate WOULD do...

LOL LOL LOL LOL

That is what this "candidate" would do. And I would vote for him in a heartbeat but I would be one of maybe 6 votes he would get.

Max Rockatansky

01-12-2014, 08:48 AM

That is harsh. I supposed you disregard the concept of federalism.

There's a wide difference between being a "Statist" and, like the Founders, understanding the practicality of a Federal government for certain functions.

Is our Federal government too large and overreaching in 2014? Yes, but that's not what is being discussed.

nathanbforrest45

01-12-2014, 08:52 AM

There's a wide difference between being a "Statist" and, like the Founders, understanding the practicality of a Federal government for certain functions.

Is our Federal government too large and overreaching in 2014? Yes, but that's not what is being discussed.

The problem is, as I see it, that while incrementalism certainly worked for the progressives it would not work for those who truly believe in the ideals of the Founding Fathers, which is limited federal government and self reliance of the people. In seeing the reactions of those who see themselves as staunch conservatives tells me this country is absolutely doomed and like Rome before it will just be a footnote in history.

Once you allow some "cracks" in those ideals the question merely becomes how big a crack is acceptable and right now it has grown to chasms and not cracks.

Peter1469

01-12-2014, 08:56 AM

The problem is, as I see it, that while incrementalism certainly worked for the progressives it would not work for those who truly believe in the ideals of the Founding Fathers, which is limited federal government and self reliance of the people. In seeing the reactions of those who see themselves as staunch conservatives tells me this country is absolutely doomed and like Rome before it will just be a footnote in history.

If there were enough votes, in the right parts of the country, to get a House and Senate that would follow this conception of the Constitution then we would have that.

nathanbforrest45

01-12-2014, 09:02 AM

If there were enough votes, in the right parts of the country, to get a House and Senate that would follow this conception of the Constitution then we would have that.

The vote is rigged to the extent that the majority of each state lives in large clusters called cities. Most of those in the cities are on some kind of government dole and a good portion of those who don't live in these clusters have this insane notion that its up to the government to take care of everyone. As long as that kind of situation exist we will continue to get increasing statism.

Everyone wants the government to cut spending, for your projects but not theirs.

Max Rockatansky

01-12-2014, 09:04 AM

The problem is, as I see it, that while incrementalism certainly worked for the progressives it would not work for those who truly believe in the ideals of the Founding Fathers, which is limited federal government and self reliance of the people.

Some Founding Fathers. Let's not forget John Adams and Alexander Hamilton of the Federalist Party. Even George Washington, to some extent, was sympathetic to Federalist Party. OTOH, I side with the Jefferson Democrats and their ideals of Republicanism. This fight between Federal and State isn't new. Just the names have changed over the centuries.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/peopleevents/pande05.html

Federalism was born in 1787, when Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote 85 essays collectively known as the Federalist papers. These eloquent political documents encouraged Americans to adopt the newly-written Constitution and its stronger central government.

Largely influenced by the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, the Federalists succeeded in convincing the Washington administration to assume national and state debts, pass tax laws, and create a central bank. These moves undoubtedly saved the fledgling democracy from poverty and even destruction. In foreign policy, Federalists generally favored England over France.

Anti-Federalists such as Thomas Jefferson feared that a concentration of central authority might lead to a loss of individual and states rights. They resented Federalist monetary policies, which they believed gave advantages to the upper class. In foreign policy, the Republicans leaned toward France, which had supported the American cause during the Revolution.

Jefferson and his colleagues formed the Republican Party in the early 1790s. By 1795, the Federalists had become a party in name as well.

After John Adams, their candidate, was elected president in 1796, the Federalists began to decline. The Federalists' suppression of free speech under the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the assumption of closer relations with Britain instead of France, inflamed Jeffersonian Republicans. In 1801 Jefferson, with Vice President Aaron Burr at his side, assumed the presidency.

The Federalists feared and hated Jefferson, but partly due to infighting, they were never able to organize successful opposition. A last great hope -- that the New England states would secede and form a Federalist nation -- collapsed when Jefferson won a landslide reelection in 1804, thanks to the Louisiana Purchase. Alexander Hamilton was left with little power -- and with no choice but to meet Aaron Burr on the dueling ground in hope of reviving his political career. But Hamilton was doomed, and so was his party. The Federalists would never again rise to power.

Peter1469

01-12-2014, 09:07 AM

Yes but the Federalists would still be bewildered by the American left's view of the proper role of the federal government.

jillian

01-12-2014, 09:08 AM

Yes but the Federalists would still be bewildered by the American left's view of the proper role of the federal government.

they were "bewildered" by the time marbury v madison was decided.

nathanbforrest45

01-12-2014, 09:10 AM

I am speaking of the ideal which won the debate when the Constitution was written. There will always be those who want to control others. I believe the majority of the Founders wanted no such control. To me, those who want the kind of government we are increasingly seeing in this country hold the rest of us is contempt and believe we all lack the ability to make our decisions. This is the entire premise of statism, that the government, run by "educated elitist" know more than the unwashed masses. If you want to support that I am sincerely troubled.

Peter1469

01-12-2014, 09:10 AM

they were "bewildered" by the time marbury v madison was decided.

Not the Federalists....

Max Rockatansky

01-12-2014, 09:11 AM

Yes but the Federalists would still be bewildered by the American left's view of the proper role of the federal government.

Doubtful. I think it's right up their ally.

The fight between Nanny Staters and Individualism is as old as Mother and Father since I believe that is from where it stems; the concept of the dominating, nurturing Mother vs. the concept of the stern Father pushing their children to become self-sustaining adults.

jillian

01-12-2014, 09:23 AM

Not the Federalists....

the "founders" were.

we have a document. we have case law. THAT is what should be guiding us since we're a common law (not a code) country. all of this talk about "originalism" was never intended to be the way we interpret the constitution. concepts/words are intentionally left undefined and open-ended because it was supposed to breathe generationally. these were pretty smart men. i suspect they knew that two hundred years down the line we wouldn't be run by white, male, landed gentry and their views wouldn't necessarily apply.

they were politicians. making their every thought mystical is incomprehensible to me. not to mention that they didn't agree with each other

jillian

01-12-2014, 09:28 AM

BTW, in response to the o/p. no i'd never vote for that candidate. the judgment of the o/p (and presumably the candidate in question) as to what is or is not constitutional has no basis in our law.

social security is not unconstitutional and has been upheld by the court.

the fed is not unconstitutional

the o/p's judgment as to what are "useful" remnants of the agencies mentioned is, while the o/p's opinion, certain doesn't explain what the candidate (and presumably the o/p) thinks is useful.

so.. no. no. and heck no.

and as was pointed out, no matter how much the o/p doesn't like labels, it is certainly a states' rights platform, something that was disposed of by getting rid of the articles of confederation and finally putting the issue to rest with the civil war. that isn't going to be re-fought in the trenches of congress and shouldn't.

Ransom

01-12-2014, 09:35 AM

the "founders" were.

we have a document. we have case law. THAT is what should be guiding us since we're a common law (not a code) country. all of this talk about "originalism" was never intended to be the way we interpret the constitution. concepts/words are intentionally left undefined and open-ended because it was supposed to breathe generationally. these were pretty smart men. i suspect they knew that two hundred years down the line we wouldn't be run by white, male, landed gentry and their views wouldn't necessarily apply.

they were politicians. making their every thought mystical is incomprehensible to me. not to mention that they didn't agree with each other

They put their own lives on the line, they did what politicians as of late don't do. And thank God these men came before many observers today. Knowing they didn't agree, they understood representation, that those disagreements ie freedom of speech was protected. Your right. Correct Jillian, they didn't consider 'thoughts' to be extreme, they embraced their differences. Left laws in the hands of legislatures, were fearful of central government, they didn't agree with each other you are correct. But understand where they did find common ground, Jillian, they don't agree with you. Or your modern progressives

jillian

01-12-2014, 09:39 AM

They put their own lives on the line, they did what politicians as of late don't do. And thank God these men came before many observers today. Knowing they didn't agree, they understood representation, that those disagreements ie freedom of speech was protected. Your right. Correct Jillian, they didn't consider 'thoughts' to be extreme, they embraced their differences. Left laws in the hands of legislatures, were fearful of central government, they didn't agree with each other you are correct. But understand where they did find common ground, Jillian, they don't agree with you. Or your modern progressives

if they didn't want centralized government, they wouldn't have moved away from the articles of confederation.

i know where they found common ground. it was that the centralized government had the right to act for the "general welfare" of the country (see general welfare clause), had the right to pass laws concerning interstate commerce (see commerce clause and case law on the subject); and that the laws of the federal government superseded the laws of the states when those laws are in conflict (supremacy clause).

i wouldn't know re "modern progressives". i'm talking about 200 years plus of case law and constitutional construction.

Peter1469

01-12-2014, 09:39 AM

That is not a fair description of "originalism." The principles exposed by the Constitution are largely timeless concepts that don't need to be re-interpreted because we want to. Take the proper role of the federal government as it relates to state sovereignty. The states ceded only certain powers to the Federal government. Those are found in Art. 1, sec. 8, U.S. Const. The Founders did not expect that enumerated list to expand on its own as future leaders' whims shift with the political winds. In fact, they included two ways to change the Constitution if needed: the amendment process which is initiated by the Congress, and the Convention process which is initiated by the States.

It seems that originalism is anything other than a living constitution which turns the Founder's product into a single sentence- "do as thou will...."

the "founders" were.

we have a document. we have case law. THAT is what should be guiding us since we're a common law (not a code) country. all of this talk about "originalism" was never intended to be the way we interpret the constitution. concepts/words are intentionally left undefined and open-ended because it was supposed to breathe generationally. these were pretty smart men. i suspect they knew that two hundred years down the line we wouldn't be run by white, male, landed gentry and their views wouldn't necessarily apply.

they were politicians. making their every thought mystical is incomprehensible to me. not to mention that they didn't agree with each other

Mainecoons

01-12-2014, 09:40 AM

They didn't want this much centralized government and tried to prevent it. And failed.

Peter1469

01-12-2014, 09:47 AM

jillian

01-12-2014, 09:49 AM

They didn't fail. Future generations did.

It has been mentioned in other threads lately: whatever system humans make, other humans can find loopholes to get around the intent of the system.

they created the government they created. they set up absolutely everything i described. whether they would have agreed or disagreed with the resulting decisions is irrelevant. they were flawed men of their time. not saints. and the constitution is not a fundamentalist's bible.

Peter1469

01-12-2014, 09:51 AM

they created the government they created. they set up absolutely everything i described. whether they would have agreed or disagreed with the resulting decisions is irrelevant. they were flawed men of their time. not saints. and the constitution is not a fundamentalist's bible.

Agreed that the Constitution is not a bible. It also isn't a document that allows the federal government to "do and thou will." :smiley:

undine

01-12-2014, 10:07 AM

That is harsh. I supposed you disregard the concept of federalism.I don't find it harsh. The candidate sounds more like a dictator than a president. No president can have those sweeping powers.

iustitia

01-12-2014, 10:10 AM

"Legislative:

Nullification of unconstitutional laws passed by Congress
Vetoing new unconstitutional bills
Threatening with arrest and treason charges legislators that blatantly ignore the Constitution

Judicial:

Nullification of unconstitutional decisions made by the Supreme Court and lower courts
Disregarding new unconstitutional judicial mandates and judicial activism
Threatening with arrest and treason charges judges that blatantly ignore the Constitution
Actively seeking the impeachment of said judges and/or abolition of activist courts

Executive:

Nullification of unconstitutional executive orders by Presidents
Refusal to enforce unconstitutional mandates from all branches
Threatening with arrest and treason charges executive officers that blatantly ignore the Constitution
Actively seeking the removal of said officers and/or abolition of imperious offices"

Who does that candidate think he is, King Barack Obama? He's going to decide when the Supreme Court is acting unconstitutionally? He's going to decide which laws are constitutional? He's going to decide when legislators are acting unconstitutionally?

What, pray tell, does the Constitution he wants to ignore have to say about that?

You keep repeating that this is against the Constitution but I'm not seeing it. This isn't far from what Jefferson did as president when federal courts were out of control. He didn't arrest them mind you, he just abolished 18 out of 35 federal courts and sent them packing. So no, he doesn't think he's king, he thinks he's a vanguard of liberty as should all citizens that actually value the republic. Legislators, judges and executives are sworn to uphold the Constitution, yes? So how is holding them to that standard against the Constitution? Are you against upholding the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, against betrayal of trust and confidence?

Max Rockatansky

01-12-2014, 10:12 AM

They didn't want this much centralized government and tried to prevent it. And failed.

As shown previously in posts #31 and #36, I disagree. It seems to be exactly where some of the Founders were headed. It's a philosophical difference.

Chris

01-12-2014, 10:17 AM

Insofar as what is or is not Constitutional in America is hotly debated, I imagine that all of our current Congress Critters could sign onto this and argue that they are only acting within the Constitution. (Note I am only responding to the Constitutional issues raised, not the specific policies listed).

I think that's where I have trouble with the candidate and the laundry list based on what's (un)constitutional. What I would prefer is a candidate who defined what he or she thinks is and is not constitutional and then declared he'd stand for those principles regardless what came at him or her.

iustitia

01-12-2014, 10:23 AM

Not even for dog catcher. Anyone exhibiting this lack of understanding on how our government functions shouldn't be anywhere near public office."functions"

BTW, in response to the o/p. no i'd never vote for that candidate. the judgment of the o/p (and presumably the candidate in question) as to what is or is not constitutional has no basis in our law.

social security is not unconstitutional and has been upheld by the court.

the fed is not unconstitutionalAh, appeal to authority, judicial supremacy.
Remember this?

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/20588-You-Live-To-Serve-The-State-Judicial-Supremacy?p=468898

You're welcome.

the o/p's judgment as to what are "useful" remnants of the agencies mentioned is, while the o/p's opinion, certain doesn't explain what the candidate (and presumably the o/p) thinks is useful.

so.. no. no. and heck no.

and as was pointed out, no matter how much the o/p doesn't like labels, it is certainly a states' rights platform, something that was disposed of by getting rid of the articles of confederation and finally putting the issue to rest with the civil war. that isn't going to be re-fought in the trenches of congress and shouldn't.The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation because of issues involving currency and trade. I think you're confused. Tell me, if the Constitution "disposed of" states' rights, why does the 10th Amendment exist and what is its purpose? Did the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments repeal the 10th Amendment?

Alyosha

01-12-2014, 10:24 AM

I'm supposed to be napping, but

1. Scalia is technically not an originalist but a textualist.

2. We are not designated but implied to be a common law nation, if you look at Louisiana's "constitution" you will see how it is written to designate specifically the type of legal system the people chose, in their case they chose "civil" as most other Europeans did.

3. The common law system arose at a time when the laws were simpler and broader, when politicians met less often, and under Constitutional Monarchies. For the last 100 years we have had an active legislative branch and the courts are less necessary and case law has thus been displaced (much to the dismay of positivists) as a starting point for legal reasoning. The laws are 1,000 of pages long now, highly detailed and constantly amended.

4. Common law as we interpret it, can cause crisis and has in the past, when societies make the shift to fewer veins of political thought and partisan courts with partisan interpretations (see England's land crisis of the 18th centurty).

5. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_DN_0000_0949_ZD1.html Bush v. Gore...this decision by the highest court in the land places the hand of law-making back to the states and their own legislative bodies, certainly for partisan reasons, but at the same time the court did move to allow legislatures to be the law-makers and return to the use of judicial review as only having the power to translate a law to that particular case, not the whole of the country.

The living Constitutionalists need to look to their own arguments and understand that the very antiquated Common Law system is not set in stone, but tradition only. They, too, need to "grow up". We don't have laws written about horses anymore that we need to translate. We don't have a loose set of laws as did the British. We have volumes of laws and our Congress no longer rides in a few times a year to make a law. They live in Washington and the courts are becoming obsolete as far as being necessary to understanding the law. The people who made the laws are still alive and well. As far as determining whether or not the law is Constitutional, we are still at an impasse of how judicial review needs to work. When the court took it upon itself 16 years after the birth of the United States to create law-making "tests" it was controversial then, thus showing that the former "Englishmen" were even shocked by this abuse of the common law practice.

We are not England. We are the United States all things change. It may stay as it is now or it may morph into something else.

Anyway, I have to nap. Good day all.

Chris

01-12-2014, 10:24 AM

the "founders" were.

we have a document. we have case law. THAT is what should be guiding us since we're a common law (not a code) country. all of this talk about "originalism" was never intended to be the way we interpret the constitution. concepts/words are intentionally left undefined and open-ended because it was supposed to breathe generationally. these were pretty smart men. i suspect they knew that two hundred years down the line we wouldn't be run by white, male, landed gentry and their views wouldn't necessarily apply.

they were politicians. making their every thought mystical is incomprehensible to me. not to mention that they didn't agree with each other

the "founders" were.

The question was were the founders bewildered by Marbury v Madison. Do you have any evidence of that? Given that you leap to other matters, probably you do not.

concepts/words are intentionally left undefined and open-ended because it was supposed to breathe generationally.

Do you have evidence for this? Or is it just another vacuous claim by you?

we're a common law

We're both common law and civil law, jillian, or do you ignore the legislative branch of government.

making their every thought mystical is incomprehensible to me

But that is what you argue for, a magical mystery reading of the Constitution to mean anything you please.

Chris

01-12-2014, 10:29 AM

if they didn't want centralized government, they wouldn't have moved away from the articles of confederation.

i know where they found common ground. it was that the centralized government had the right to act for the "general welfare" of the country (see general welfare clause), had the right to pass laws concerning interstate commerce (see commerce clause and case law on the subject); and that the laws of the federal government superseded the laws of the states when those laws are in conflict (supremacy clause).

i wouldn't know re "modern progressives". i'm talking about 200 years plus of case law and constitutional construction.

If they wanted an absolute centralized government they wouldn't have restricted it to enumerated powers, and then written a Bill of Rights that further limited it.

it was that the centralized government had the right to act for the "general welfare" of the country

That is true, that they could exercise enumerated powers only for the general welfare, the good of all, at the time meaning protect natural rights. But our government has become one that acts for special welfare from social to corporate welfare, it's completely lost its moorings and bearings, it's a ship lost at sea.

Chris

01-12-2014, 10:32 AM

They didn't want this much centralized government and tried to prevent it. And failed.

They didn't fail. Future generations did.

It has been mentioned in other threads lately: whatever system humans make, other humans can find loopholes to get around the intent of the system.

No, they failed. they failed to foresee how some would twist the Constitution out of all recognition and turn the country from a protector of freedom to a tyrant of corporatism.

Chris

01-12-2014, 10:33 AM

they created the government they created. they set up absolutely everything i described. whether they would have agreed or disagreed with the resulting decisions is irrelevant. they were flawed men of their time. not saints. and the constitution is not a fundamentalist's bible.

whether they would have agreed or disagreed with the resulting decisions is irrelevant.

That's laughable. And it contradicts the premises of your argument.

Chris

01-12-2014, 10:37 AM

They didn't want this much centralized government and tried to prevent it. And failed.

I'm supposed to be napping, but

1. Scalia is technically not an originalist but a textualist.

2. We are not designated but implied to be a common law nation, if you look at Louisiana's "constitution" you will see how it is written to designate specifically the type of legal system the people chose, in their case they chose "civil" as most other Europeans did.

3. The common law system arose at a time when the laws were simpler and broader, when politicians met less often, and under Constitutional Monarchies. For the last 100 years we have had an active legislative branch and the courts are less necessary and case law has thus been displaced (much to the dismay of positivists) as a starting point for legal reasoning. The laws are 1,000 of pages long now, highly detailed and constantly amended.

4. Common law as we interpret it, can cause crisis and has in the past, when societies make the shift to fewer veins of political thought and partisan courts with partisan interpretations (see England's land crisis of the 18th centurty).

5. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_DN_0000_0949_ZD1.html Bush v. Gore...this decision by the highest court in the land places the hand of law-making back to the states and their own legislative bodies, certainly for partisan reasons, but at the same time the court did move to allow legislatures to be the law-makers and return to the use of judicial review as only having the power to translate a law to that particular case, not the whole of the country.

The living Constitutionalists need to look to their own arguments and understand that the very antiquated Common Law system is not set in stone, but tradition only. They, too, need to "grow up". We don't have laws written about horses anymore that we need to translate. We don't have a loose set of laws as did the British. We have volumes of laws and our Congress no longer rides in a few times a year to make a law. They live in Washington and the courts are becoming obsolete as far as being necessary to understanding the law. The people who made the laws are still alive and well. As far as determining whether or not the law is Constitutional, we are still at an impasse of how judicial review needs to work. When the court took it upon itself 16 years after the birth of the United States to create law-making "tests" it was controversial then, thus showing that the former "Englishmen" were even shocked by this abuse of the common law practice.

We are not England. We are the United States all things change. It may stay as it is now or it may morph into something else.

Anyway, I have to nap. Good day all.

Disagree, Scalia is an originalist, not a textualist. http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2010_spr/scalia.htm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/is-justice-scalia-abandoning-originalism

Enjoy your nap. :-)

nathanbforrest45

01-12-2014, 12:49 PM

nathanbforrest45

01-12-2014, 12:51 PM

I don't find it harsh. The candidate sounds more like a dictator than a president. No president can have those sweeping powers.

I don't think you truly understand what you are reading. The candidate simply wants to return to the ideals of the founders and wants to eliminate the powers the federal government has usurped from the states and from the people.

undine

01-12-2014, 02:35 PM

I don't think you truly understand what you are reading. The candidate simply wants to return to the ideals of the founders and wants to eliminate the powers the federal government has usurped from the states and from the people.
So the candidate is making empty promises. Either that or stupid enough to not realize his agenda is unconstitutional.

Run the candidate, we could all use a laugh.

Ransom

01-12-2014, 02:47 PM

if they didn't want centralized government, they wouldn't have moved away from the articles of confederation.

Re-read student Jillian, they were fearful of central government, they were in fact creating one rather than not wanting one. The government they created, Jillian......stay with me here I'm gonna learn ya during halftime.......received it's power from the consent of the governed. It considered individual rights endowed, that you could speak your mind. Practice your religion. Own firearms. Associate with your peers. Private property, states rights, three equal branches of government, term limits I like to call elections, our government created in fear of centralized government as they knew it would infringe upon individual rights.

I
know where they found common ground. it was that the centralized government had the right to act for the "general welfare" of the country (see general welfare clause), had the right to pass laws concerning interstate commerce (see commerce clause and case law on the subject); and that the laws of the federal government superseded the laws of the states when those laws are in conflict (supremacy clause).

Oh, I think most students of our Founding Father's government would tell you our ancestors wouldn't support our current reality.

I wouldn't know re "modern progressives". i'm talking about 200 years plus of case law and constitutional construction.

I would know a modern progressive, I'm exchanging with one. Dome a dozen.

Contrails

01-12-2014, 05:04 PM

That is harsh. I supposed you disregard the concept of federalism.
I have no problem with the concept of federalism. Our system of federal, state, and local government is exactly what the founding fathers envisioned and has proven itself over the last 2 centuries. What I do have a problem with are people saying the system is broken when they don't even understand how it functions.

You keep repeating that this is against the Constitution but I'm not seeing it. This isn't far from what Jefferson did as president when federal courts were out of control. He didn't arrest them mind you, he just abolished 18 out of 35 federal courts and sent them packing. So no, he doesn't think he's king, he thinks he's a vanguard of liberty as should all citizens that actually value the republic.
Jefferson abolished federal courts which had been created in the last days of Adam's presidency and had nothing to do with out-of-control courts. He also did it in accordance with the Constitution by getting a law passed by Congress.

Legislators, judges and executives are sworn to uphold the Constitution, yes? So how is holding them to that standard against the Constitution? Are you against upholding the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, against betrayal of trust and confidence?
The candidate in the OP claims to be upholding the Constitution without demonstrating any understanding of it. Civics 101 teaches that Congress makes the law, the President upholds the law, and the courts interpret the law. If someone thinks something is unconstitutional, they take it up with the courts. The Supreme Court gets the final say in what is or is not constitutional, and if you disagree, the proper recourse is to change the law or the Constitution itself, not the court. Suggesting that Congress or even the President can unilaterally deem a court decision, or anything else for that matter, unconstitutional goes against the very structure of our government.

Max Rockatansky

01-12-2014, 07:40 PM

They didn't want this much centralized government and tried to prevent it. And failed.

Given that it's a bit difficult the read the minds of our Founders almost two hundred years after they made their mark on history, the fact remains the USA of today is a bit different than the USA during the election of 1800:

http://www.usnook.com/uploads/allimg/121024/13-121024114SAT.jpg

From the link I already quoted:

Largely influenced by the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, the Federalists succeeded in convincing the Washington administration to assume national and state debts, pass tax laws, and create a central bank. These moves undoubtedly saved the fledgling democracy from poverty and even destruction. In foreign policy, Federalists generally favored England over France.

Anti-Federalists such as Thomas Jefferson feared that a concentration of central authority might lead to a loss of individual and states rights. They resented Federalist monetary policies, which they believed gave advantages to the upper class. In foreign policy, the Republicans leaned toward France, which had supported the American cause during the RevolutionAnyone besides me see something familiar here?

The Federalists feared and hated Jefferson, but partly due to infighting, they were never able to organize successful opposition. A last great hope -- that the New England states would secede and form a Federalist nation -- collapsed when Jefferson won a landslide reelection in 1804, thanks to the Louisiana Purchase. Alexander Hamilton was left with little power -- and with no choice but to meet Aaron Burr on the dueling ground in hope of reviving his political career. But Hamilton was doomed, and so was his party. The Federalists would never again rise to power.
This too looks familiar except IMO, it's the Republicans who are destroying themselves with infighting and, if they don't pull their collective heads out of their asses, the party of Lincoln will end up like the Federalists.

I hadn't known the some Yankee states had considered seceding if Jefferson hadn't won in a landslide. Kinda shoots down the Yankee meme that secession wasn't legal.

nathanbforrest45

01-12-2014, 08:11 PM

So the candidate is making empty promises. Either that or stupid enough to not realize his agenda is unconstitutional.

Run the candidate, we could all use a laugh.

What exactly is unconstitutional about this Does the president have the authority to not sign bills into law?

nathanbforrest45

01-12-2014, 08:16 PM

Mr Happy

01-12-2014, 08:20 PM

Is "right" different today than it was 200 years ago? Does "freedom" mean something different today than it did 200 years ago? If I said 200 years ago the people shall have the right to trial by jury does that mean something different today?

I don't understand this "living breathing" "piece of paper" leftist are so fond of. It seems to me that something that can change on a whim has no real meaning and if we want to return to slavery we certainly could if enough voters agreed for example.

Right is right, true is true. It doesn't matter if it was 10000 years ago or yesterday.

I find this post very strange. You are disproving your first paragraph with your second without meaning to.

For a start, does "freedom" mean something different today than it did 200 years ago? I'll say absolutely. Five words with regard to 200 years ago and freedom. "Land Owners", "slavery" and "woman voting". I don't have to spell it out for you do I?

iustitia

01-13-2014, 04:41 AM

I have no problem with the concept of federalism. Our system of federal, state, and local government is exactly what the founding fathers envisioned and has proven itself over the last 2 centuries. What I do have a problem with are people saying the system is broken when they don't even understand how it functions.You're assuming too much and demonstrating too little.

Jefferson abolished federal courts which had been created in the last days of Adam's presidency and had nothing to do with out-of-control courts. He also did it in accordance with the Constitution by getting a law passed by Congress.

I repeat, since you didn't give any thought to what you read if you actually read it.
"Actively seeking the impeachment of said judges and/or abolition of activist courts"
What is different here?

The candidate in the OP claims to be upholding the Constitution without demonstrating any understanding of it. Civics 101 teaches that Congress makes the law, the President upholds the law, and the courts interpret the law. If someone thinks something is unconstitutional, they take it up with the courts. The Supreme Court gets the final say in what is or is not constitutional, and if you disagree, the proper recourse is to change the law or the Constitution itself, not the court. Suggesting that Congress or even the President can unilaterally deem a court decision, or anything else for that matter, unconstitutional goes against the very structure of our government.

I see, you're one of those. Now see, I don't believe in a judicial dictatorship. The concept of an unchallengeable Court is not what the Founders, even Hamilton, had envisioned.

I recall Newt Gingrich giving an awesome answer about this back in 2012-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLQebqVQKcc

I'll also link back to this again-
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/20588-You-Live-To-Serve-The-State-Judicial-Supremacy?p=468898

The notion that the Constitution is whatever judges say it is and there's no recourse beyond a constitutional amendment is so absurd it begs the question of what if anything you learned in "Civics 101." You're essentially saying that 9 judges, really make that 5 judges, have equivalent authority as a constitutional convention. That's just terrible. Your system of checks and balances has no checks and balances when the intended weakest branch can't feasibly be countered but for rewriting the Constitution to placate or get around the lawyer class.

undine

01-13-2014, 05:58 AM

What exactly is unconstitutional about this Does the president have the authority to not sign bills into law?

There is a difference between signing bills into law and abolishing laws because you personally think they are unconstitutional. A president doesn't have that power, nor should he or she.

jillian

01-13-2014, 05:59 AM

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 06:03 AM

If someone ran on this platform and was elected would that not mean the citizenry was in favor of what he was proposing? Under those circumstances what do you think Congress would do. Please do try to answer without the snitty comments of "we all need a laugh" Its unbecoming and only shows you are unsure of your position.
Congressional representatives, obviously, represent their constituents but have a sworn duty to support and defend the Constitution.

Congressional Oath of Office:
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

What Congress should do is represent their respective constituents while simultaneously doing their sworn duty.

iustitia

01-13-2014, 06:11 AM

There is a difference between signing bills into law and abolishing laws because you personally think they are unconstitutional. A president doesn't have that power, nor should he or she.

The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. If Congress passes unconstitutional laws they are abolishing law then as well, are they not?

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 06:29 AM

The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. If Congress passes unconstitutional laws they are abolishing law then as well, are they not?

IF. Please list three "unconstitutional laws" which Congress has passed and why you think they are unconstitutional.

iustitia

01-13-2014, 07:33 AM

IF. Please list three "unconstitutional laws" which Congress has passed and why you think they are unconstitutional.

Only three? Sure.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 07:57 AM

Only three? Sure.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.

You didn't state why you think they are unconstitutional.

The 1938 Agricultural Act fixed the unconstitutional aspects of the 1933 Act. Although I don't like the encroachment aspects of the Undetectable Firearms Act, that doesn't make it unconstitutional. I think the ACA is hugely flawed, especially the mandate aspect, but SCOTUS ruled on that part.

iustitia

01-13-2014, 08:07 AM

You didn't state why you think they are unconstitutional.

The 1938 Agricultural Act fixed the unconstitutional aspects of the 1933 Act. Although I don't like the encroachment aspects of the Undetectable Firearms Act, that doesn't make it unconstitutional. I think the ACA is hugely flawed, especially the mandate aspect, but SCOTUS ruled on that part.

Ah I missed that part of your comment.

The Agricultural Act is unconstitutional because nowhere in the Constitution does Congress have any authority interfering with agriculture. The commerce clause is meant to ensure states do not prohibit other states from engaging in commerce, and that's it. It's not a license for lawmakers to experiment with the market. Of course the government had been involved in agriculture since Lincoln with the Department of Agriculture, and that doesn't make it ok.

Likewise, gun control is unconstitutional, gun production mandates and regulations and whatnot are not supported by the US Constitution, neither the commerce clause nor the Second Amendment allow for such laws.

Obama is not constitutional because the Court says it is. I don't know how many times this has to be brought up before people stop treating the word of lawyers as word of God, but the court held up servitude, segregation, forced sterilization and concentration camps in the past when those clearly were not ok. This isn't really about constitutionality but an appeal to authority which I cannot in good conscience agree to. The Constitution limits the central authority to delegated powers for specific purposes and those things not mentioned are the territory of the States or the people.

jillian

01-13-2014, 08:26 AM

Chris

01-13-2014, 08:29 AM

congress has the power to legislate anything concerning interstate commerce and the general welfare.

your determination as to what is unconstitutional because you don't like something is still inapplicable.

Commerce clause: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes". Not anything. Anything outside a simple reading of those words is unconstitutional.

And the welfare clause is a restriction on granted powers. It is not itself a granted power by any reading of the Constitution.

your determination as to what is unconstitutional because you don't like something is still inapplicable.

You're the only one using your feelings to read the document, stop projecting.

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 08:38 AM

Ah I missed that part of your comment.

The Agricultural Act is unconstitutional because nowhere in the Constitution does Congress have any authority interfering with agriculture. The commerce clause is meant to ensure states do not prohibit other states from engaging in commerce, and that's it. It's not a license for lawmakers to experiment with the market. Of course the government had been involved in agriculture since Lincoln with the Department of Agriculture, and that doesn't make it ok.

Likewise, gun control is unconstitutional, gun production mandates and regulations and whatnot are not supported by the US Constitution, neither the commerce clause nor the Second Amendment allow for such laws.

Obama is not constitutional because the Court says it is. I don't know how many times this has to be brought up before people stop treating the word of lawyers as word of God, but the court held up servitude, segregation, forced sterilization and concentration camps in the past when those clearly were not ok. This isn't really about constitutionality but an appeal to authority which I cannot in good conscience agree to. The Constitution limits the central authority to delegated powers for specific purposes and those things not mentioned are the territory of the States or the people.

Thanks. I won't go point-for-point since I don't do text walls, so I'll focus on the Second Amendment issue as it is near and dear to my heart.

SCOTUS has ruled, as Justice Scalia wrote, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited" which explains why we can't have a Little John tactical nuke missile in the backyard.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/still-limits-second-amendment

Undetectable weapons are made with a single intention, to avoid detection such as airports and court houses. People have rights. While you and I have a right to own and carry a gun, the rights of others must also be considered since they do not want to be shot intentionally or by accident. A similar line of thought is used in limiting our First Amendment right by making it illegal to cause a panic by yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater. The rights of all must be balanced.

nathanbforrest45

01-13-2014, 08:39 AM

There is a difference between signing bills into law and abolishing laws because you personally think they are unconstitutional. A president doesn't have that power, nor should he or she.

You don't think the president could not convince a significant number of the Legislature to repeal certain laws? Do you believe that once a law is passed it must remain in effect forever?

As far as the various governmental departments are concerned other than those specifically called for in the Constitution doe not the president have a hand in creating them? If so would he not also have a hand it ending them?

Codename Section

01-13-2014, 08:40 AM

congress has the power to legislate anything concerning interstate commerce and the general welfare.

your determination as to what is unconstitutional because you don't like something is still inapplicable.

I'm not calling you out on purpose but this is mind control. Believing that no one but dudes in robes has either intelligence or capability of understanding a document written for them and their protection is religious nonsense.

Can only a Rabbi interpret the Bible? Can only a priest? No. Why then are judges the only ones that can read words and know what they say?

Government officials have only the power we give them and their history shows they always abuse it anyway. I really can't trust someone with power to have the only ability to interpret that power.

Chris

01-13-2014, 09:14 AM

I'm not calling you out on purpose but this is mind control. Believing that no one but dudes in robes has either intelligence or capability of understanding a document written for them and their protection is religious nonsense.

Can only a Rabbi interpret the Bible? Can only a priest? No. Why then are judges the only ones that can read words and know what they say?

Government officials have only the power we give them and their history shows they always abuse it anyway. I really can't trust someone with power to have the only ability to interpret that power.

What needs to be called out is the inflammatory dismissal of rational arguments as merely emotional. Disagreement is fine, present a rational counterargument, but this constant dissembling attribution of emotionalism onto others is just meant to piss people off and distract from discussion.

undine

01-13-2014, 09:27 AM

You don't think the president could not convince a significant number of the Legislature to repeal certain laws? Do you believe that once a law is passed it must remain in effect forever?

As far as the various governmental departments are concerned other than those specifically called for in the Constitution doe not the president have a hand in creating them? If so would he not also have a hand it ending them?
Sure, a president could do that. Look at Bush, he convinced the critters to wage a stupid war. But that isn't what the OP was talking about. She was talking about one person having all the power.

Ivan88

01-13-2014, 11:16 AM

First you gotta define "Constitution". The Constitution was created in response to the Shay Regulators of Massachusetts who were enforcing the real constitution.
The Constitution was designed to keep Americans down, so that they could no longer control their public servants.
Under our current situation, the American people are at best the "public servants" of the bully-crats and their super-rich masters, and at worst, we are just a pack of noisy sea gulls swarming over spilt bait.

Read Lysander Spoon's, THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWESql2dXoc

Ivan88

01-13-2014, 11:17 AM

How about this guy:
5358

Captain Obvious

01-13-2014, 11:20 AM

You forgot one key criteria that will result in most people answering "yes" to this poll - is this candidate spending the most campaign dollars?

01-13-2014, 11:26 AM

jillian

01-13-2014, 11:29 AM

I like some of the hypothetical candidate's ideas-- especially the repeal of the 17th Amendment-- but all in all this country wouldn't know how to deal with this vision of government. We're much too dependent, much too globalized, much too reliant to embrace this program.

wouldn't you prefer to say that most people wouldn't WANT that type of government? not that people couldn't "handle" it.

globalization is a natural condition of the world getting smaller because of travel and communications advances.

it isn't possible to be isolationist and maintain any power.

01-13-2014, 11:35 AM

wouldn't you prefer to say that most people wouldn't WANT that type of government? not that people couldn't "handle" it.

globalization is a natural condition of the world getting smaller because of travel and communications advances.

it isn't possible to be isolationist and maintain any power.

Isolationism is a stupid idea, but non interventionism in many cases is the right course of action.

True, right now most of the country probably would not want this vision of government. By bringing up globalization what I really mean is that we're so estranged from the production process that consumers need a government big enough to ensure that the foods we eat and the products we buy are safe, or that we understand the risks involved when it comes to things like eating unhealthy or smoking.

Frankly, I don't care what the country wants. Democracy is an awful basis for government, with the saving grace that it allows us to regularly correct our mistakes, which are frequent.

nathanbforrest45

01-13-2014, 11:37 AM

Sure, a president could do that. Look at Bush, he convinced the critters to wage a stupid war. But that isn't what the OP was talking about. She was talking about one person having all the power.

I didn't read that into it.

jillian

01-13-2014, 11:41 AM

Isolationism is a stupid idea, but non interventionism in many cases is the right course of action.

yes. i'm not for wars of choice. i prefer when military intervention can be avoided. but that doesn't go to maintaining active relationships with other countries and remaining part of the world stage.

True, right now most of the country probably would not want this vision of government. By bringing up globalization what I really mean is that we're so estranged from the production process that consumers need a government big enough to ensure that the foods we eat and the products we buy are safe, or that we understand the risks involved when it comes to things like eating unhealthy or smoking.

the reason for those regulations was what corporate america did which endangered consumers. is that because we're removed from producing our own food. well, yes. most of us live in cities.

i have no problem with regulations. they were enacted to solve existing problems. ignoring that is at our peril.

Frankly, I don't care what the country wants. Democracy is an awful basis for government, with the saving grace that it allows us to regularly correct our mistakes, which are frequent.

interestingly, we don't live in a true democracy as we have protections from tyranny of the majority where needed. but if you want to upturn the type of government we have, you'd better have the support of the country because a teeny minority has no mandate to wreck things.

Chris

01-13-2014, 12:25 PM

yes. i'm not for wars of choice. i prefer when military intervention can be avoided. but that doesn't go to maintaining active relationships with other countries and remaining part of the world stage.

the reason for those regulations was what corporate america did which endangered consumers. is that because we're removed from producing our own food. well, yes. most of us live in cities.

i have no problem with regulations. they were enacted to solve existing problems. ignoring that is at our peril.

interestingly, we don't live in a true democracy as we have protections from tyranny of the majority where needed. but if you want to upturn the type of government we have, you'd better have the support of the country because a teeny minority has no mandate to wreck things.

We don't have a no true Scotsman democracy because our natural rights are no longer protected but instead posited rights are imposed.

Ivan88

01-13-2014, 01:01 PM

Russia moving towards putting NONE OF THE ABOVE on ballots.
http://rt.com/politics/russia-voting-option-duma-518/
5362

Contrails

01-13-2014, 01:08 PM

I repeat, since you didn't give any thought to what you read if you actually read it.
"Actively seeking the impeachment of said judges and/or abolition of activist courts"
What is different here?
The difference is that Jefferson neither impeached said judges or abolish an activist court, since the courts he abolished had not be around long enough to do anything.

I see, you're one of those. Now see, I don't believe in a judicial dictatorship. The concept of an unchallengeable Court is not what the Founders, even Hamilton, had envisioned.
Funny, because that's exactly what Hamilton wrote in Federalist 78 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm).

"The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.

The notion that the Constitution is whatever judges say it is and there's no recourse beyond a constitutional amendment is so absurd it begs the question of what if anything you learned in "Civics 101." You're essentially saying that 9 judges, really make that 5 judges, have equivalent authority as a constitutional convention. That's just terrible. Your system of checks and balances has no checks and balances when the intended weakest branch can't feasibly be countered but for rewriting the Constitution to placate or get around the lawyer class.
Then maybe you should do what Hamilton couldn't and propose a system for determining what is and is not constitutional without involving the courts.

Contrails

01-13-2014, 01:21 PM

I'm not calling you out on purpose but this is mind control. Believing that no one but dudes in robes has either intelligence or capability of understanding a document written for them and their protection is religious nonsense.

Can only a Rabbi interpret the Bible? Can only a priest? No. Why then are judges the only ones that can read words and know what they say?

Government officials have only the power we give them and their history shows they always abuse it anyway. I really can't trust someone with power to have the only ability to interpret that power.
The problem is that the Constitution is written with words, and words can have different meanings. You will never have an objective standard for determining if something violates the Constitution, so at some point someone has to have the final say, otherwise you're promoting chaos. As Hamilton spelled out in Federalist #78, the only practical system is judicial review by an independent court.

iustitia

01-13-2014, 01:43 PM

iustitia

01-13-2014, 01:51 PM

Thanks. I won't go point-for-point since I don't do text walls, so I'll focus on the Second Amendment issue as it is near and dear to my heart.

SCOTUS has ruled, as Justice Scalia wrote, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited" which explains why we can't have a Little John tactical nuke missile in the backyard.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/still-limits-second-amendment

Undetectable weapons are made with a single intention, to avoid detection such as airports and court houses. People have rights. While you and I have a right to own and carry a gun, the rights of others must also be considered since they do not want to be shot intentionally or by accident. A similar line of thought is used in limiting our First Amendment right by making it illegal to cause a panic by yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater. The rights of all must be balanced.What if the people need to be undetected? Some things, like nukes, are inherent threats to the liberty of others. I'm conservative, but I'm a radical conservative. I support the right to own a tank if one wishes. Tanks have one purpose-war. The Second Amendment is a safeguard of the citizen's right to wage war on his government, which I wholly support.

jillian

01-13-2014, 01:53 PM

What if the people need to be undetected? Some things, like nukes, are inherent threats to the liberty of others. I'm conservative, but I'm a radical conservative. I support the right to own a tank if one wishes. Tanks have one purpose-war. The Second Amendment is a safeguard of the citizen's right to wage war on his government, which I wholly support.

the 2nd amendment has zero to do with defending oneself from one's government. it was intended to allow a well-regulatd militia to DEFEND the government.

if what you say were in any way true, the only criminal act defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

i appreciate your interest in this subject and you know a lot about the philosophy. but you can't just make up things about what the law is or what you think it should be because you feel like.

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 02:55 PM

What if the people need to be undetected? Some things, like nukes, are inherent threats to the liberty of others. I'm conservative, but I'm a radical conservative. I support the right to own a tank if one wishes. Tanks have one purpose-war. The Second Amendment is a safeguard of the citizen's right to wage war on his government, which I wholly support.

Agreed the purpose of the Second Amendment is self-defense including against tyranny, but the rights of other members of "We, the People" must also be considered.

I'm sure both of us have heard of tragedies where people were accidentally shot because their kid was playing with a handgun or, as in one case, the dog discharged a loaded rifle killing the owner. What would happen in a neighborhood if someone's M-1 120mm cannon accidentally discharged? It could kill an entire family across the street or out to 4000 meters. What rights do other Americans have in this regard?

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 03:00 PM

the 2nd amendment has zero to do with defending oneself from one's government. it was intended to allow a well-regulatd militia to DEFEND the government.

Incorrect, Jillian. SCOTUS has repeatedly agreed that the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to defend individual rights. This could be as simple as protecting oneself against two-legged varmints or a tyrannical government.

Please balance this particular discussion against a previous one you and I had where you claimed the 1% were getting all the money. If that were true, wouldn't such a system need to be rectified? By force if necessary?

Ransom

01-13-2014, 03:06 PM

From the Supreme Court 2010 ruling; Samuel Alito reading for the majority;

"It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html

A single torpedo is all it takes, her ships sink easy.

iustitia

01-13-2014, 03:19 PM

The difference is that Jefferson neither impeached said judges or abolish an activist court, since the courts he abolished had not be around long enough to do anything.You're right, which is even worse. He flat out rejected their existence for political reasons under the guise of financial burdens. And Congress went right along with it. And the remaining judges that didn't get impeached, excluding Samuel Chase, were scared to fight Jefferson over it because they thought their courts would be next.

This man, by the way, also had Samuel Chase issued with 8 articles of impeachment for speaking out against the repeal of said Judiciary Act. Jefferson was no friend of judges. Imagine that...

Funny, because that's exactly what Hamilton wrote in Federalist 78 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm).

"The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.However, he also wrote the following in #78-

“This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of powers; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that ‘there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.’ ”

"[The] judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1820-

"It is a very dangerous doctrine indeed to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, and one that would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Thomas Jefferson again in 1821-

“It has long, however, been my opinion … that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary … working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the states, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because when all government shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided … and will become as venal and oppressive as the government [of George III] from which we separated.”

Then maybe you should do what Hamilton couldn't and propose a system for determining what is and is not constitutional without involving the courts.Did you read the proposed amendments? I can tell most of the critics in this thread didn't read past the first lines in the OP, but I don't want to assume.

the 2nd amendment has zero to do with defending oneself from one's government. it was intended to allow a well-regulatd militia to DEFEND the government.

if what you say were in any way true, the only criminal act defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

i appreciate your interest in this subject and you know a lot about the philosophy. but you can't just make up things about what the law is or what you think it should be because you feel like.

That is 100% false and no intellectually honest person that's researched the Bill of Rights could possibly come to that conclusion. I don't even know where to begin, so I just won't. No bueno.

bobgnote

01-13-2014, 03:40 PM

iustitia

01-13-2014, 03:43 PM

Agreed the purpose of the Second Amendment is self-defense including against tyranny, but the rights of other members of "We, the People" must also be considered.

I'm sure both of us have heard of tragedies where people were accidentally shot because their kid was playing with a handgun or, as in one case, the dog discharged a loaded rifle killing the owner. What would happen in a neighborhood if someone's M-1 120mm cannon accidentally discharged? It could kill an entire family across the street or out to 4000 meters. What rights do other Americans have in this regard?

I could make some not-perfect analogies to private planes or driving but I don't think it'd advance far. This is a matter of point of view honestly. A matter of how much risk each of us would accept to preserve an individual's rights. When the state - the enemy of the people historically - has every weapon of war conceivable from tanks to drones, I believe limiting the people to registered, licensed, numbered, fully detectable, no-burst, small mag, gov authorized arms is setting freedom up for failure. I tend to err on the side of the insurgent.

Let me use the liberal talking point- "The Founders never envisioned automatic weapons that could kill so many people at once!" That's true, and they also never envisioned an imperial president capable of blowing up a building from the heavens using an unmanned drone. As the paradigms of warfare change, either the people will maintain their position in relation to a standing army or they will cede it, and I'd prefer the former. Parity between civilians and the state is hard to imagine in such an age of mechanized warfare, but when you've only got a shotgun and you're staring down a tank... well, the guy in the tank won't be envying you to say the least.

Suffice it to say, I don't think the average American is more dangerous with weapons of war than the government is with those same weapons.

nathanbforrest45

01-13-2014, 03:52 PM

Brilliant post iustitia

Contrails

01-13-2014, 05:31 PM

Then maybe you should do what Hamilton couldn't and propose a system for determining what is and is not constitutional without involving the courts.
Did you read the proposed amendments? I can tell most of the critics in this thread didn't read past the first lines in the OP, but I don't want to assume.

I did read it and no where in there did you propose a process.

Judicial:

Nullification of unconstitutional decisions made by the Supreme Court and lower courts
Disregarding new unconstitutional judicial mandates and judicial activism
Threatening with arrest and treason charges judges that blatantly ignore the Constitution
Actively seeking the impeachment of said judges and/or abolition of activist courts

How do you propose to determine if a Supreme Court decision is unconstitutional?

jillian

01-13-2014, 05:34 PM

I did read it and no where in there did you propose a process.

How do you propose to determine if a Supreme Court decision is unconstitutional?

whatever is in his/her head.

iustitia

01-13-2014, 05:43 PM

I did read it and no where in there did you propose a process.

How do you propose to determine if a Supreme Court decision is unconstitutional?

Reading the Constitution would be a start, but no, you clearly didn't read the platform and proposed amendments if you're still stuck on those two lines. Hint: read a little further down.

donttread

01-13-2014, 06:05 PM

Looks like if the Constitution could run as a candidate it would have a chance

Mainecoons

01-13-2014, 06:09 PM

Not in today's America. We should sell the thing to the highest bidder, we sure don't need it now. We're a country of men, not laws.

Contrails

01-13-2014, 06:59 PM

Reading the Constitution would be a start, but no, you clearly didn't read the platform and proposed amendments if you're still stuck on those two lines. Hint: read a little further down.

You'll have to be more specific. Despite 19 instances of the word "unconstitutional", I don't see any proposed process for determining what this applies to.

iustitia

01-13-2014, 07:05 PM

Process-
1. Read the Constitution
2. Determine context
3. Make laws accordingly

Contrails

01-13-2014, 07:56 PM

You're right, which is even worse. He flat out rejected their existence for political reasons under the guise of financial burdens. And Congress went right along with it. And the remaining judges that didn't get impeached, excluding Samuel Chase, were scared to fight Jefferson over it because they thought their courts would be next.

This man, by the way, also had Samuel Chase issued with 8 articles of impeachment for speaking out against the repeal of said Judiciary Act. Jefferson was no friend of judges. Imagine that...
But Congress didn't agree with Jefferson, did they? Jefferson's opinion about judicial review is just one of many, and for as long as this republic has existed, a minority opinion.

However, he also wrote the following in #78-

“This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of powers; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that ‘there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.’ ”

"[The] judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."

The whole point of which was to justify the life-long appointment of justices. Only with immunity from the political whims of the country could the judicial branch be equal to the other two.

"That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws."

Contrails

01-13-2014, 08:00 PM

Process-
1. Read the Constitution
2. Determine context
3. Make laws accordingly

That would only work if words had one and only one meaning. If our founding fathers who wrote the Constitution didn't share a common opinion on the context, what makes you think anyone else will?

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 08:45 PM

I could make some not-perfect analogies to private planes or driving but I don't think it'd advance far. This is a matter of point of view honestly. A matter of how much risk each of us would accept to preserve an individual's rights. When the state - the enemy of the people historically - has every weapon of war conceivable from tanks to drones, I believe limiting the people to registered, licensed, numbered, fully detectable, no-burst, small mag, gov authorized arms is setting freedom up for failure. I tend to err on the side of the insurgent.

Let me use the liberal talking point- "The Founders never envisioned automatic weapons that could kill so many people at once!" That's true, and they also never envisioned an imperial president capable of blowing up a building from the heavens using an unmanned drone. As the paradigms of warfare change, either the people will maintain their position in relation to a standing army or they will cede it, and I'd prefer the former. Parity between civilians and the state is hard to imagine in such an age of mechanized warfare, but when you've only got a shotgun and you're staring down a tank... well, the guy in the tank won't be envying you to say the least.

Suffice it to say, I don't think the average American is more dangerous with weapons of war than the government is with those same weapons.

So you have no problem with Jared Loughner, James Holmes and Adam Lanza having their own nukes? The difference between some asshole down the street having his own nuke and "the gubment" (in reality highly screened and trained men and women of the US Armed Forces) is one of strict command and control. Sorry, but it's not that I completely trust the government, but that I do trust the many American patriots who serve in uniform more than the "average" American with a weapon that could destroy an entire city of millions.

That said, I think it is of topmost importance to continue to live with the spirit of all the Amendments - protecting the rights of individual Americans.

iustitia

01-13-2014, 09:23 PM

But Congress didn't agree with Jefferson, did they? Jefferson's opinion about judicial review is just one of many, and for as long as this republic has existed, a minority opinion.Congress *did* agree with Jefferson. They eliminated half of the federal judgeships, impeached the imbecile John Pickering, and the House impeached Samuel Chase and the Senate acquitted the charges to appear neutral in the context of the Sedition Act despite the Republicans agreeing in principle.

The whole point of which was to justify the life-long appointment of justices. Only with immunity from the political whims of the country could the judicial branch be equal to the other two.

"That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws."
I agree with Hamilton's assertion's about commissions and expectations, however, this isn't the point. He did not advocate judicial supremacy, which is the issue today. Periodical appointments aren't preferred, but they are needed now. Our history has shown that. There was too much stock put into unelected judges.

We're at a point where the general wisdom is that the Supreme Court isn't just supreme over lower courts, but over the other branches. Which I remind you Hamilton rejected the possibility of. So we're left with a conundrum about what matters more. TRUE judicial dependence, which would necessarily exclude this current model... how though if not these proposals? We have two choices as I see it-

Judges serving for life with the power to overrule the elected branches.
Judges serving terms (slightly shorter than the time in service now by average) without the ability to wield the powers of the other branches.
I don't believe a common ground or syncretic position can be implemented, as a judge with tenure has little reason to fear the doctrine of judicial restraint. That's what our history has shown. Also, not for nothing, the position of Chief Justice wouldn't even exist but for Congress making it so with the Judiciary Act of 1789. If there's to truly be a balance of powers, checks and balances can't be one way only. Investing total power - the equal of a constitutional convention - into the hands of five lawyers, can and has shown to be disastrous.

That would only work if words had one and only one meaning. If our founding fathers who wrote the Constitution didn't share a common opinion on the context, what makes you think anyone else will?Thus the word context.

iustitia

01-13-2014, 09:32 PM

So you have no problem with Jared Loughner, James Holmes and Adam Lanza having their own nukes? The difference between some asshole down the street having his own nuke and "the gubment" (in reality highly screened and trained men and women of the US Armed Forces) is one of strict command and control. Sorry, but it's not that I completely trust the government, but that I do trust the many American patriots who serve in uniform more than the "average" American with a weapon that could destroy an entire city of millions.

That said, I think it is of topmost importance to continue to live with the spirit of all the Amendments - protecting the rights of individual Americans.

I might not have made it clear enough, but I said I don't support the average person wielding nukes. In my mind the atomic bomb was a war crime and should have never been used. Well, that's another debate. I view weapons capable of, and purposely designed for, flattening cities entirely differently. Even practically, I told you straight up that this is about what we're willing to tolerate. You and I can agree on a nuke. I can't agree on mechanized weapons. I imagine the threat of occupation coming before the threat of being flattened. By the time nukes are even part of the equation, it's not a country worth fighting for... Perhaps with a return to federalism the individual states could have an equal hand in nuclear control, at least eliminating the federal monopoly. That could be a rational rebel stance.

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 09:57 PM

I might not have made it clear enough, but I said I don't support the average person wielding nukes. In my mind the atomic bomb was a war crime and should have never been used. Well, that's another debate. I view weapons capable of, and purposely designed for, flattening cities entirely differently....

Unfortunately you are trying to apply common sense to law and that doesn't always work. In your opinion, nukes are too much, but I'm sure there are those who think tactical nukes would be okay. If not them, then land mines in the yard or tanks with 120mm shells. It would be a virtual rainbow of differences on what is okay and what is not. The law has to codify this stuff in order to work. It's why the first thing law students learn is "There is law and there is justice. They are not the same."

We agree to a right of self-protection. We agree individual rights are the main reason for the Bill of Rights with the Second Amendment being a means of physical defense of those rights. We agree that some weapons in the hands of an average person is not a good idea due to the danger for all other Americans around them.

It appears the main place we differ is that I agree with Justice Scalia and you do not.

iustitia

01-13-2014, 10:17 PM

Unfortunately you are trying to apply common sense to law and that doesn't always work. In your opinion, nukes are too much, but I'm sure there are those who think tactical nukes would be okay. If not them, then land mines in the yard or tanks with 120mm shells. It would be a virtual rainbow of differences on what is okay and what is not. The law has to codify this stuff in order to work. It's why the first thing law students learn is "There is law and there is justice. They are not the same."

We agree to a right of self-protection. We agree individual rights are the main reason for the Bill of Rights with the Second Amendment being a means of physical defense of those rights. We agree that some weapons in the hands of an average person is not a good idea due to the danger for all other Americans around them.

It appears the main place we differ is that I agree with Justice Scalia and you do not.

It would seem so. I believe my right to punch the air ends where your face begins.

Max Rockatansky

01-13-2014, 10:26 PM

It would seem so. I believe my right to punch the air ends where your face begins.

A 120mm cannon on an M1A1 Abrams is a lot of punch!

Anti-gun liberals think small arms are useless against a military armed with tanks, artillery and attack aircraft. What they forget is that the men and women inside those machines are also Americans. Americans who are often a lot more patriotic than most Americans. Americans who have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

If the time comes, freedom fighters will have tanks, artillery and attack aircraft and the people who know how to use them.

Codename Section

01-13-2014, 10:52 PM

iustitia

01-13-2014, 11:11 PM

A 120mm cannon on an M1A1 Abrams is a lot of punch!

Anti-gun liberals think small arms are useless against a military armed with tanks, artillery and attack aircraft. What they forget is that the men and women inside those machines are also Americans. Americans who are often a lot more patriotic than most Americans. Americans who have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

If the time comes, freedom fighters will have tanks, artillery and attack aircraft and the people who know how to use them.

I believe it all comes down to context. A tank realistically can take a couple dozen lives and create massive amounts of property damage. One small nuke can flatten a small city and wipe out hundreds of thousands of civilians. The average student driver is more of a risk to public safety than a serious citizen with a tank. I think anyone investing the time and money to even get a tank, assuming they're not some shitbag rapper with money to waste, would be wise enough to respect the power of a 70 ton gun on treads.

Regardless, I hate to say this because most have been good people, but nearly every person I've served with wouldn't know the Constitution they swore an oath to if their Commander In Chief wipe his ass with it in front of their face. I personally don't belief most people that take oaths understand what they're swearing to uphold. I know I did. I have my signed oath framed on my wall, one of the few things from my service I admit to having pride in. But as war crimes, cops, politicians and judges show, oaths don't mean shit unless they're enforced and they usually aren't. Soldiers are just citizens in costumes. That's all any public servant is, no matter how honorable they are. Uniforms, badges, suits, robes. They're just costumes that are worn by people we trust with maintaining some semblance of order, and I can't remove from them the reality the human condition. I wouldn't bet on true patriots to follow illegal and immoral orders. I can't make that bet on love-it-or-leave-it nationalists, go-complex dickhead authoritarians, college kids looking for benefits, just-here-for-the-check troopers, free vacation warriors, and "respect the rank above all else" sycophants. Historically, government crimes need someone to carry them out.

Contrails

01-14-2014, 06:56 AM

I agree with Hamilton's assertion's about commissions and expectations, however, this isn't the point. He did not advocate judicial supremacy, which is the issue today. Periodical appointments aren't preferred, but they are needed now. Our history has shown that. There was too much stock put into unelected judges.
How is the Judicial branch in any way supreme? It can only work with what Congress has written and what the Executive branch enforces. Without judicial review, what recourse would you have to challenge a law passed by Congress and signed by the President?

Thus the word context.
You do realize that context is subjective, don't you? Everyone has their own opinion about what is constitutional, so what do you propose we do when those opinions differ? I hope you're not suggesting we're all free to act on our opinion of what is and is not constitutional.

Max Rockatansky

01-14-2014, 07:09 AM

I believe it all comes down to context. A tank realistically can take a couple dozen lives and create massive amounts of property damage. One small nuke can flatten a small city and wipe out hundreds of thousands of civilians. The average student driver is more of a risk to public safety than a serious citizen with a tank. I think anyone investing the time and money to even get a tank, assuming they're not some shitbag rapper with money to waste, would be wise enough to respect the power of a 70 ton gun on treads.

All it takes is that one "shitbag rapper" to begin driving around in his tank and firing to create a major problem. It's a clear legal line; either the tanks are illegal for all or they aren't. Setting a legal standard on trying to define "serious citizen" divides our society into those whom our government defines as responsible and "shitbag rappers". Is that the precedent we really want to set?

jillian

01-14-2014, 08:29 AM

All it takes is that one "shitbag rapper" to begin driving around in his tank and firing to create a major problem. It's a clear legal line; either the tanks are illegal for all or they aren't. Setting a legal standard on trying to define "serious citizen" divides our society into those whom our government defines as responsible and "shitbag rappers". Is that the precedent we really want to set?

it goes with the whole "i can decide what the constitution says" thing.

which is why self-serving individuals can't decide what the constitution says because they feel like.

Max Rockatansky

01-14-2014, 08:38 AM

it goes with the whole "i can decide what the constitution says" thing.

which is why self-serving individuals can't decide what the constitution says because they feel like.

Agreed and that's why we have courts to make those decisions when the rest of us can't decide.

Chris

01-14-2014, 08:45 AM

it goes with the whole "i can decide what the constitution says" thing.

which is why self-serving individuals can't decide what the constitution says because they feel like.

Two problems with that view.

One, those judges in black robes are just people like anyone else prone to bias and error.

Two, no reading of the Constitution should be based on mere feeling but on rational reasoning. Therefore to merely say judges are right is to say nothing without giving the reasoning behind it. In fact runs foul of the very thing you criticize, agreement/disagrement based on mere feeling.

Codename Section

01-14-2014, 08:51 AM

it goes with the whole "i can decide what the constitution says" thing.

which is why self-serving individuals can't decide what the constitution says because they feel like.

And yet they do. It's why presidents pick someone from their political party to be judges.

They don't want impartial interpretations, they want their party to have more of their policies enacted.

Chris

01-14-2014, 09:10 AM

And yet they do. It's why presidents pick someone from their political party to be judges.

They don't want impartial interpretations, they want their party to have more of their policies enacted.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on where you stand, such appointmentees tend to follow their own temperament rather than the party's or the president's. I mean who would have guessed Sotomeyer's recent decision on the ACA's birth control mandate or Ginsberg's rejection of Roe or Robert's finding the ACA constitutional as a tax?

iustitia

01-14-2014, 01:23 PM

How is the Judicial branch in any way supreme? It can only work with what Congress has written and what the Executive branch enforces. Without judicial review, what recourse would you have to challenge a law passed by Congress and signed by the President?
http://www.thepoliticalforums.com/threads/20588-You-Live-To-Serve-The-State-Judicial-Supremacy?p=468898
The courts have routinely usurped power from the other elected branches, even from the people. And I'm sure you've heard the phrase 'legislating from the bench.' The Court has grown more and more imperious and incorrigible since even before the Warren Court. I don't even know how you can ask how the court is supreme. When you or anyone else claims that the Courts are the final say on all matters of the Constitution, that's beyond an appeal to authority -- that's a no-limits fallacy. When the Court makes a ruling, how exactly do the other branches check the court? They don't, they can't under this model of judicial supremacy.

The only thing that could be done is the impeachment of justices, which even then according to the model of the inerrant court wouldn't matter because what the Court says will go until it changes its mind 80 years later. Or the Constitution could be amended, which is a ridiculous notion - to have to amend the Constitution every time a majority of Justices fuck up. Assuming an average of 70 cases being heard a year, even if only 10% of those cases were ruled incorrectly that's 10 potential amendments needed a year. That's an absurd standard. So what recourse is there? Well removing judges or adding them is a constitutional power of Congress, but that'd violate judicial independence, right? So what else is there? How can the President or Congress check the word of God?

Five unelected lawyers in robes just as prone to human error and bigotry can not be the final authority on law in a 'free' country. The judicial was intended to be the weakest of the three branches. If the two elected branches can check one-another, and the unelected branch can check either, then both elected should be able to check the unelected. That means Congress setting the Court straight on its role and putting the hurt on them if needed, and the President ignoring them if needed.

You do realize that context is subjective, don't you? Everyone has their own opinion about what is constitutional, so what do you propose we do when those opinions differ? I hope you're not suggesting we're all free to act on our opinion of what is and is not constitutional.
The Framers of the Constitution had a lot to say when they were drafting it. My suggestion would be for people to confer with them before groveling at the feet of lawyers. I'll never understand why people juxtapose inerrancy onto a legal body that's historically been occupied by drunks, womanizers, crooks, racists, anti-semites, idiots, the insane, and political crony sycophants. They're human, no more capable of judging the meaning of the Constitution that you or I.

All it takes is that one "shitbag rapper" to begin driving around in his tank and firing to create a major problem. It's a clear legal line; either the tanks are illegal for all or they aren't. Setting a legal standard on trying to define "serious citizen" divides our society into those whom our government defines as responsible and "shitbag rappers". Is that the precedent we really want to set?I think we're having a miscommunication again. I wasn't advocating a litmus test for tank ownership, no more than I would for gun ownership. I believe if you use a weapon to harm the innocent you're a criminal, and I wouldn't create restrictions to make it harder for decent folks to own and maintain said weapon because of a fringe minority. I was just trying to illustrate my view on who would really misuse a tank. I think there are people that get guns thinking it makes them tough, and end up misusing them. That's just an observation, not me advocating gun restrictions. Social commentary vs legal appeal.

undine

01-14-2014, 01:27 PM

Can you describe a few laws that SCOTUS has enacted?

Max Rockatansky

01-14-2014, 02:21 PM

I think we're having a miscommunication again. I wasn't advocating a litmus test for tank ownership, no more than I would for gun ownership. I believe if you use a weapon to harm the innocent you're a criminal, and I wouldn't create restrictions to make it harder for decent folks to own and maintain said weapon because of a fringe minority. I was just trying to illustrate my view on who would really misuse a tank. I think there are people that get guns thinking it makes them tough, and end up misusing them. That's just an observation, not me advocating gun restrictions. Social commentary vs legal appeal.

Thanks. I didn't think you were advocating a litmus test. I was simply trying to point out the difficulty in drawing a line between responsible and irresponsible tank owners.

While six million bucks for a used Abrams is out of the league for most collectors, the world is full of old Soviet tanks which can be had for pennies on the dollar. A T-62 or T-55 could do a lot of damage if accidentally discharged in the neighborhood during cleaning. Heck, even the T-34 would with its 85mm main gun would be rough on the house paint.

http://marutake.webspace.ne.jp/bbs/data/marutake/img/339_tn_6bbee2ce83.jpg

http://www.army-guide.com/images/t55_10_1.jpg
http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/t-62-main-battle-tank-4.jpg

Contrails

01-14-2014, 08:22 PM

The courts have routinely usurped power from the other elected branches, even from the people. And I'm sure you've heard the phrase 'legislating from the bench.' The Court has grown more and more imperious and incorrigible since even before the Warren Court.
'Legislating from the bench' means nothing more than you don't like how the court ruled. After all, it's a little hard for the courts to rule on something if the legislature didn't write it first. Name one court decision that wasn't based on what Congress wrote?

I don't even know how you can ask how the court is supreme. When you or anyone else claims that the Courts are the final say on all matters of the Constitution, that's beyond an appeal to authority -- that's a no-limits fallacy. When the Court makes a ruling, how exactly do the other branches check the court? They don't, they can't under this model of judicial supremacy. The only thing that could be done is the impeachment of justices, which even then according to the model of the inerrant court wouldn't matter because what the Court says will go until it changes its mind 80 years later.
Or Congress could just rewrite the law in question. I mentioned that option before but you must have overlooked it. The courts can only work with what they are given by the legislature. Without judicial review, what check would there be against Congress and the President writing and signing un-constitutional laws?

The Framers of the Constitution had a lot to say when they were drafting it. My suggestion would be for people to confer with them before groveling at the feet of lawyers. I'll never understand why people juxtapose inerrancy onto a legal body that's historically been occupied by drunks, womanizers, crooks, racists, anti-semites, idiots, the insane, and political crony sycophants. They're human, no more capable of judging the meaning of the Constitution that you or I.
Two thirds of the framers of the Constitution were lawyers, or in your words "drunks, womanizers, crooks, racists, anti-semites, idiots, the insane, and political crony sycophants." What makes you think their interpretation of what those words means is any better than ours considering they couldn't even agree between themselves, as Jefferson and Hamilton so clearly demonstrate? Besides, after 27 amendments it's not exactly the same Constitution they wrote, now is it? The simple fact that the framers provided so many ways to change the Constitution should tell you they didn't expect it to remain unchanged.