PDA

View Full Version : Paul Ryan is Ayn Rand... Ayn Rand is Paul Ryan



JerryAL
10-16-2012, 02:21 PM
Paul Ryan proves in a speech to The Atlas Society that he really does follow the philosophy of Ayn Rand. He also shares how Ayn Rand's philosophy impacts his views on public policy:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUd8zpGHS3s

birddog
10-16-2012, 02:40 PM
Rand had some great teaching that Ryan learned from, certainly they were of an anti-communistic variety. He later evolved his thinking and found he could not justify her atheism.


This is radically better than Obama's studying for years with the admitted communist Davis, and his distribution of wealth concept is still a big part of Obama's approach.

JerryAL
10-16-2012, 03:00 PM
Rand had some great teaching that Ryan learned from, certainly they were of an anti-communistic variety. He later evolved his thinking and found he could not justify her atheism.


This is radically better than Obama's studying for years with the admitted communist Davis, and his distribution of wealth concept is still a big part of Obama's approach.

I think Paul Ryan's own Catholic Church would greatly disagree with your opinion.

birddog
10-16-2012, 04:06 PM
I think Paul Ryan's own Catholic Church would greatly disagree with your opinion.

Not sure, as I haven't studied the whole thing extensively, and i'm honest enough to admit it.

JerryAL
10-16-2012, 04:11 PM
Not sure, as I haven't studied the whole thing extensively, and i'm honest enough to admit it.

Well the last 30 seconds of the video gives you the Catholic Church's opinion on Ayn Rand and Paul Ryan's support of her philosophy.

Peter1469
10-16-2012, 04:28 PM
If Ryan really followed Rand, his budget would slash government spending. Not just slow its growth.

head of joaquin
10-16-2012, 04:33 PM
Ryan should vote for the Objectivist Party. It's on the ballot. It's no more absurd than the GOP ticket.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_Party

head of joaquin
10-16-2012, 04:33 PM
Rand had some great teaching that Ryan learned from, certainly they were of an anti-communistic variety. He later evolved his thinking and found he could not justify her atheism.


This is radically better than Obama's studying for years with the admitted communist Davis, and his distribution of wealth concept is still a big part of Obama's approach.

Great teachings like rich people are great and poor people are bad.

JerryAL
10-16-2012, 04:34 PM
If Ryan really followed Rand, his budget would slash government spending. Not just slow its growth.

So Paul Ryan saying in his own voice that he follows Ayn Rand's philosophy isn't true somehow? Must have just been a Paul Ryan impersonator than I guess right?

head of joaquin
10-16-2012, 04:34 PM
If Ryan really followed Rand, his budget would slash government spending. Not just slow its growth.

Yeah because cutting infrastructure, education and science is how we build a better future. Just ask Afghanistan. Or Somalia. The Tea party paradigm states.

Peter1469
10-16-2012, 04:36 PM
So Paul Ryan saying in his own voice that he follows Ayn Rand's philosophy isn't true somehow? Must have just been a Paul Ryan impersonator than I guess right?

If Ryan actually followed Rand his budget would slash the budget; not just grow government at a slower rate than projected.

Peter1469
10-16-2012, 04:36 PM
Yeah because cutting infrastructure, education and science is how we build a better future. Just ask Afghanistan. Or Somalia. The Tea party paradigm states.

Does the word federalism mean anything to you? Roar, tiger, roar.

Deadwood
10-16-2012, 04:37 PM
Following some of the teachings, atheism aside, of Ayn Rand is a bad thing?


Perhaps her critics need to read it.

GrassrootsConservative
10-16-2012, 04:43 PM
Ayn Rand wrote about the dangers of a socialist government, the very thing Odumba wants to bring here to our America ("land of the free", mind you, not "land of those slaves to Muslim governments who spread wealth from those who earn it to those who are too lazy to go out and get it themselves"), and I would much rather have leaders who follow the teachings of freedom fighters like Ayn Rand than freedom slaughterers like Karl Marx.
Fuck Odumba.

JerryAL
10-16-2012, 04:44 PM
Following some of the teachings, atheism aside, of Ayn Rand is a bad thing?


Perhaps her critics need to read it.

I have read it, and it is a bad thing. It is a philosophy that basically pretends that each individual does everything on their own, with no help from anyone else.

As if no one else before them, built the roads and bridges that allow their own businesses to thrive, or that no teachers educated their workers that make their businesses successful.

No one is successful completely of their own doing, it takes a society.

Mainecoons
10-16-2012, 04:46 PM
I just wish we had teachers these days that could educate at all. There would be a lot fewer liberal fools running around trying to do the same failing things over and over again while expecting a different result.

GrassrootsConservative
10-16-2012, 04:46 PM
I have read it, and it is a bad thing. It is a philosophy that basically pretends that each individual does everything on their own, with no help from anyone else.

As if no one else before them, built the roads and bridges that allow their own businesses to thrive, or that no teachers educated their workers that make their business successful.

No one is successful completely of their own doing, it takes a society.

Blah blah blah. Take that Communist shit back to Russia and North Korea. America is land of the free, not land of the communistic government servants. There are plenty of governments who would gladly take you as another slave, move there instead of voting for those kinds of leaders here in America. You're ruining our country.

Trinnity
10-16-2012, 05:18 PM
Paul Ryan proves in a speech to The Atlas Society that he really does follow the philosophy of Ayn Rand. He also shares how Ayn Rand's philosophy impacts his views on public policy:
Good~

Trinnity
10-16-2012, 05:28 PM
I have read it, and it is a bad thing. It is a philosophy that basically pretends that each individual does everything on their own, with no help from anyone else.It doesn't condemn or exclude non-govt charity.


As if no one else before them, built the roads and bridges that allow their own businesses to thrive, or that no teachers educated their workers that make their businesses successful.
No one is successful completely of their own doing, it takes a society. And all that effort and money came from individual taxpaying citizens. The govt only takes from us. Much of our money gets wasted.

head of joaquin
10-16-2012, 05:54 PM
Does the word federalism mean anything to you? Roar, tiger, roar.

In a modern economy, very little. Most important decisions need to be made at the national level, which is generally the best place to make important decisions (away from ignorant teabagger local interests)

But then it's modernity that Rand and the conservatives fear.

head of joaquin
10-16-2012, 05:55 PM
I just wish we had teachers these days that could educate at all. There would be a lot fewer liberal fools running around trying to do the same failing things over and over again while expecting a different result.

Pay them more. That's how markets work.

head of joaquin
10-16-2012, 05:58 PM
Ayn Rand wrote about the dangers of a socialist government, the very thing Odumba wants to bring here to our America ("land of the free", mind you, not "land of those slaves to Muslim governments who spread wealth from those who earn it to those who are too lazy to go out and get it themselves"), and I would much rather have leaders who follow the teachings of freedom fighters like Ayn Rand than freedom slaughterers like Karl Marx.
Fuck Odumba.

A review of some Randian offal:

http://leftwingnoisemachine.com/11/post/2011/05/who-the-hell-is-john-galt.html

And the subliterate Ryan applauds this philosophical dreck?

Mainecoons
10-16-2012, 05:59 PM
Don't know anything about teacher pay either.

Figures.

What a "modern economy" looks like:

745

head of joaquin
10-16-2012, 06:00 PM
Don't know anything about teacher pay either.

Figures.

What a "modern economy" looks like:

745

You don't know anything about teacher pay, or modern economic theory, that's true. Your grasp of the obvious is truly inspiring.

Meanwhile, Rand of course is a laughingstock among any educated people,which is why the subliterate baggers flock to her odious prose.

Peter1469
10-16-2012, 06:48 PM
I just wish we had teachers these days that could educate at all. There would be a lot fewer liberal fools running around trying to do the same failing things over and over again while expecting a different result.

But that would run counter to the entire purpose of public education.

Peter1469
10-16-2012, 06:54 PM
In a modern economy, very little. Most important decisions need to be made at the national level, which is generally the best place to make important decisions (away from ignorant teabagger local interests)

But then it's modernity that Rand and the conservatives fear.

Finally a reasoned response, at least in part. I fixed your post for you.

But I agree in part with your revised post, and disagree in part. I agree that changes to our Constitution are needed to give the federal government more power than granted via Art. 1, sec. 8, US Const. But those crafty founders gave us the mechanism for this in Art. V, US Const. I disagree in that, most of these issues we banter about here are still best handled at the local and state level.

Since you at least tried to make a rational argument I will say Tiger, instead of tiger.

Chris
10-16-2012, 06:55 PM
Great teachings like rich people are great and poor people are bad.

Well, by that, you obviously haven't read Rand.

Chris
10-16-2012, 06:57 PM
A review of some Randian offal:

http://leftwingnoisemachine.com/11/post/2011/05/who-the-hell-is-john-galt.html

And the subliterate Ryan applauds this philosophical dreck?

And I was right, you haven't read Rand you've read a misguided misleading blogger's interpretations of not even her but a movie.

head of joaquin
10-16-2012, 06:57 PM
Finally a reasoned response, at least in part. I fixed your post for you.

But I agree in part with your revised post, and disagree in part. I agree that changes to our Constitution are needed to give the federal government more power than granted via Art. 1, sec. 8, US Const. But those crafty founders gave us the mechanism for this in Art. V, US Const. I disagree in that, most of these issues we banter about here are still best handled at the local and state level.

Since you at least tried to make a rational argument I will say Tiger, instead of tiger.

Well at least this is a honest response.

The general welfare clause and commerce clause are about as broad as you can get, and SC case after SC case has so ruled. So your concerns are ill-founded in that regard.

head of joaquin
10-16-2012, 06:58 PM
And I was right, you haven't read Rand you've read a misguided misleading blogger's interpretations of not even her but a movie.

Regrettably I've read everything she wrote. Like a lot of stupid, self-involved teenage males, I actually thought she had a point. Then I grew up.

I guess you haven't. Rand is adolescent, which is why adolescent males are her core audience. The fact that even now you and Ryan don't realize that, speaks volumes about your lack of self-insight.

Chris
10-16-2012, 06:58 PM
Pay them more. That's how markets work.

Where did you find that misunderstanding of how markets work? That's how socialism works.

head of joaquin
10-16-2012, 07:01 PM
Where did you find that misunderstanding of how markets work? That's how socialism works.

Jesus.

Offer higher wages, more qualified people apply. It works with basketball players, CEOs, and teachers. It works with everybody. You just don't like teachers.

Are you just pretending to be obtuse or what?

Beyond this obtuseness we need two teachers in every classroom and smaller classrooms. The number one impediment to teaching is disruptive kids (usually just one or two). Due process requires time to get them into special needs classes (and that costs more money). Every teacher will tell you that.

It's about money. Deal with it.

Chris
10-16-2012, 07:06 PM
Jesus.

Offer higher wages, more qualified people apply. It works with basketball players, CEOs, and teachers. It works with everybody. You just don't like teachers.

Are you just pretending to be obtuse or what?

Beyond this obtuseness we need two teachers in every classroom and smaller classrooms. The number one impediment to teaching is disruptive kids (usually just one or two). Due process requires time to get them into special needs classes (and that costs more money). Every teacher will tell you that.

It's about money. Deal with it.

Demand-side economics is nonsense.

garyo
10-16-2012, 07:06 PM
Yea, let's throw more money at the problem, you can't fix stupid.:headbang:

Peter1469
10-16-2012, 07:25 PM
Well at least this is a honest response.

The general welfare clause and commerce clause are about as broad as you can get, and SC case after SC case has so ruled. So your concerns are ill-founded in that regard.

Thank you again for a rational response.

The general welfare clause is not so broad. The clause contains the enumerated powers to which it refers.

The commerce clause is also not broad, or at least not before 1937. The commerce clause was a shield for the federal government to ease commerce between the states. It was not a sword to force commerce or to block commerce (drugs for example).

Chris
10-16-2012, 08:06 PM
Problem with citing the general welfare clause is it is concerned with we the people and all our welfare in general, not the special interests of the welfare state, be it social or corporate welfare.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And such citation ignores the rest of the Preamble.

And ignores the fact it is not an enumerated power.



Agree with Peter on the commerce clause.

head of joaquin
10-16-2012, 08:55 PM
Problem with citing the general welfare clause is it is concerned with we the people and all our welfare in general, not the special interests of the welfare state, be it social or corporate welfare.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And such citation ignores the rest of the Preamble.

And ignores the fact it is not an enumerated power.



Agree with Peter on the commerce clause.

You've got the wrong part of the Constitution. You're telling me you really think the general welfare clause is in the preamble?

Jesus.

Look at Arti 1. section 8 and read it outloud. Slowly.

head of joaquin
10-16-2012, 08:58 PM
Thank you again for a rational response.

The general welfare clause is not so broad. The clause contains the enumerated powers to which it refers.

The commerce clause is also not broad, or at least not before 1937. The commerce clause was a shield for the federal government to ease commerce between the states. It was not a sword to force commerce or to block commerce (drugs for example).

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. And that ends the inquiry. Theoretical concerns are great but the process we have to determine the constitutionality of legislation is by bringing suit, with ultimate authority to decide in the SC.

That's the process. In that process, your view has been rejected. That's that.

head of joaquin
10-16-2012, 09:00 PM
Demand-side economics is nonsense.

Silly maxims are worse.

Better pay, better applicants, better teachers. Iron law of economics.

Like I always say, capitalism want capitalism for everybody but themselves.

Peter1469
10-16-2012, 09:04 PM
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. And that ends the inquiry. Theoretical concerns are great but the process we have to determine the constitutionality of legislation is by bringing suit, with ultimate authority to decide in the SC.

That's the process. In that process, your view has been rejected. That's that.

Thank you again for a rational response. I do understand that SCOTUS disagrees with me- at least starting from 1937.

I say that they are in err; and these errors must be corrected to return the United States to its principals.

Chris
10-16-2012, 09:10 PM
You've got the wrong part of the Constitution. You're telling me you really think the general welfare clause is in the preamble?

Jesus.

Look at Arti 1. section 8 and read it outloud. Slowly.

There too the same principle is stated, it is concerned with we the people and all our welfare in general, not the special interests of the welfare state, be it social or corporate welfare.

I didn't expect you to respond to the challenge.

Chris
10-16-2012, 09:12 PM
Thank you again for a rational response. I do understand that SCOTUS disagrees with me- at least starting from 1937.

I say that they are in err; and these errors must be corrected to return the United States to its principals.

I suppose it is rational to make the bold claim the Consitution says something and then back down and say SCOTUS has interpreted it a certain way.

Peter1469
10-16-2012, 09:15 PM
I suppose it is rational to make the bold claim the Consitution says something and then back down and say SCOTUS has interpreted it a certain way.

SCOTUS started going off track in 1937. As I said above and before. They no longer speak for the Constitution.

Chris
10-16-2012, 09:26 PM
SCOTUS started going off track in 1937. As I said above and before. They no longer speak for the Constitution.

SCOTUS went off track in Marbury v Madison. But on the Commerce Clause, yes, took them till 1937.

Peter1469
10-16-2012, 09:31 PM
I don't agree with the Marbury v Madison. Without that, what would the Court do? Have picnics on the national mall?

Chris
10-16-2012, 09:40 PM
I don't agree with the Marbury v Madison. Without that, what would the Court do? Have picnics on the national mall?

Adjudicate court cases. Determine "common law" precedent. Plenty to do.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...

Peter1469
10-16-2012, 09:44 PM
Adjudicate court cases. Determine "common law" precedent. Plenty to do.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...

So if Congress passed a law that clearly violated the Constitutional provision that says the House must initiate a spending bill (the Senate instead initiates it), SOCTUS should stay out of it; they have no jurisdiction?

Chris
10-16-2012, 10:03 PM
So if Congress passed a law that clearly violated the Constitutional provision that says the House must initiate a spending bill (the Senate instead initiates it), SOCTUS should stay out of it; they have no jurisdiction?

It did, and SCOTUS approved it, Obamacare. So now what do we do?

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. ~Madison, Federalist #51

Peter1469
10-16-2012, 10:55 PM
It did, and SCOTUS approved it, Obamacare. So now what do we do?

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. ~Madison, Federalist #51

And SCOTUS got it wrong. With your limitations, SCOTUS has no role at all.

Chris
10-17-2012, 08:08 AM
And SCOTUS got it wrong. With your limitations, SCOTUS has no role at all.

What difference? If it got Obamacare wrong, if it's been getting the Commerce Clause wrong for decades, and many more since Marbury v Madison, it provides no balancing check on government.

head of joaquin
10-17-2012, 04:00 PM
I don't agree with the Marbury v Madison. Without that, what would the Court do? Have picnics on the national mall?

This is your problem -- you don't accept the Constitution and its procedures and seperations of power.

I knew you were going to post this teaparty meme.

head of joaquin
10-17-2012, 04:03 PM
Thank you again for a rational response. I do understand that SCOTUS disagrees with me- at least starting from 1937.

I say that they are in err; and these errors must be corrected to return the United States to its principals.

The principles of separation of powers and inherent powers of the various branches is in the Constitution and in the case law.

Your rejection of 230 years of Constitutional precedent shows how out of touch with American jurisprudence conservatives are.

If the SC doesn't determine the Constitutionality of legislation, who would? You?

head of joaquin
10-17-2012, 04:05 PM
There too the same principle is stated, it is concerned with we the people and all our welfare in general, not the special interests of the welfare state, be it social or corporate welfare.

I didn't expect you to respond to the challenge.

Now you've back pedaled. The issue is the power of Congress to legislate for the general welfare, and to levy taxes to promote that. The power is set forth in black and white in Art 1, sec 8. Anybody who claims otherwise is just an ideolog out of touch with American jurisprudence and the English language.

Chris
10-17-2012, 04:07 PM
The principles of separation of powers and inherent powers of the various branches is in the Constitution and in the case law.

Your rejection of 230 years of Constitutional precedent shows how out of touch with American jurisprudence conservatives are.

If the SC doesn't determine the Constitutionality of legislation, who would? You?


The principles of separation of powers and inherent powers of the various branches is in the Constitution and in the case law.

Show us where in the Constitution SCOTUS is empowered to interpret the Constitution, especially when it comes to legislation?

Chris
10-17-2012, 04:09 PM
Now you've back pedaled. The issue is the power of Congress to legislate for the general welfare, and to levy taxes to promote that. The power is set forth in black and white in Art 1, sec 8. Anybody who claims otherwise is just an ideolog out of touch with American jurisprudence and the English language.

Haven't done that at all, my argument remains the same, Congress is empowered to legislate for the general welfare, not special interests. Why are you avoiding that counter to your specious claim?

Peter1469
10-17-2012, 05:59 PM
The principles of separation of powers and inherent powers of the various branches is in the Constitution and in the case law.

Your rejection of 230 years of Constitutional precedent shows how out of touch with American jurisprudence conservatives are.

If the SC doesn't determine the Constitutionality of legislation, who would? You?
tiger, you are agreeing with me. You are so stupid.....

head of joaquin
10-17-2012, 06:36 PM
Show us where in the Constitution SCOTUS is empowered to interpret the Constitution, especially when it comes to legislation?

Jesus, why are teabaggers so ignorant.

Art 3, sec 2. It says it in plain English.


Infraction issued

head of joaquin
10-17-2012, 06:36 PM
tiger, you are agreeing with me. You are so stupid.....

Pssst: no I'm not. Marbury is good law and has never been challenged.

Chris
10-17-2012, 06:40 PM
Jesus, why are teabaggers so ignorant.

Art 3, sec 2. It says it in plain English.

I see you cannot cite the words where in the Constitution SCOTUS is empowered to interpret the Constitution. Thank you.

head of joaquin
10-17-2012, 06:44 PM
I see you cannot cite the words where in the Constitution SCOTUS is empowered to interpret the Constitution. Thank you.

I see you can't read or don't understand what jurisdiction means.

In any case, lots of luck claiming Marbury is bad law. It's all you teabaggers got -- crank theories and crack.

Peter1469
10-17-2012, 06:44 PM
Pssst: no I'm not. Marbury is good law and has never been challenged.
And I said you agreed with me. You just don't see it. Why is that?

head of joaquin
10-17-2012, 07:09 PM
And I said you agreed with me. You just don't see it. Why is that?



I don't agree with the Marbury v Madison

I took this to mean you were disagreeing with Marbury, but in context I see I was wrong. My bad.

It's Chris who's caught in the Marbury v Madison is Wrong meme.

Peter1469
10-17-2012, 07:55 PM
I took this to mean you were disagreeing with Marbury, but in context I see I was wrong. My bad.

It's Chris who's caught in the Marbury v Madison is Wrong meme.

I must have misspoken. I was arguing with Chris about Marbury v. Madison and the role of SCOTUS.

Chris
10-17-2012, 08:11 PM
I see you can't read or don't understand what jurisdiction means.

In any case, lots of luck claiming Marbury is bad law. It's all you teabaggers got -- crank theories and crack.

I see you cannot cite the words where in the Constitution SCOTUS is empowered to interpret the Constitution. Thank you.

Here, let me help you by citing Art 3, sec 2:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Now where in that text does it say SCOTUS is empowered to interpret the Constitution? Highlight the text.



In any case, lots of luck claiming Marbury is bad law.

Nice deflection from being unable to cite the text where where in the Constitution SCOTUS is empowered to interpret the Constitution.

Chris
10-17-2012, 08:16 PM
I took this to mean you were disagreeing with Marbury, but in context I see I was wrong. My bad.

It's Chris who's caught in the Marbury v Madison is Wrong meme.

No I'm caught in the HoJ makes claims he can't back up meme.

What I argued was the Constitution does not empower SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution, that precedent was established in Marbury v Madison. SCOTUS usurped its Constitutional powers.

Chris
10-17-2012, 08:18 PM
I must have misspoken. I was arguing with Chris about Marbury v. Madison and the role of SCOTUS.

Right, contrary to HoJ's misunderstanding, you were arguing for the precedent established in Marbury v Madison.

Peter1469
10-17-2012, 08:20 PM
Right, contrary to HoJ's misunderstanding, you were arguing for the precedent established in Marbury v Madison.

I was just helping tiger out.

Peter1469
10-17-2012, 08:25 PM
Article III, Sec. 2:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority

All is pretty broad. If Congress passes a law that clearly violates the Constitution, I don't see how SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction to rule. My problem with SCOTUS is when they go further and legislate from the bench.

Why have a SCOTUS, if Congress can pass a law today eliminating the 1st Amendment, but SCOTUS has no jurisdiction?

Chris
10-17-2012, 08:28 PM
I was just helping tiger out.

Good luck.

Let's go back to our disagreement. I think we might agree if I put it this way. Neither the Constitution nor Marbury v Madison empowers SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution such that in doing so it rewrites the Constitution, the Constitution itself states how it might be changed, and interpretation is not one. What Marbury v Madison established as precedent was the power of interpretation to how the court applies the Constitution to cases before it, as such can be just as unconstitutional as any other branch.

Peter1469
10-17-2012, 08:31 PM
Good luck.

Let's go back to our disagreement. I think we might agree if I put it this way. Neither the Constitution nor Marbury v Madison empowers SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution such that in doing so it rewrites the Constitution, the Constitution itself states how it might be changed, and interpretation is not one. What Marbury v Madison established as precedent was the power of interpretation to how the court applies the Constitution to cases before it, as such can be just as unconstitutional as any other branch.

With what I said above, I can agree in general. It is a balancing act.

Chris
10-17-2012, 08:32 PM
Article III, Sec. 2:


All is pretty broad. If Congress passes a law that clearly violates the Constitution, I don't see how SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction to rule. My problem with SCOTUS is when they go further and legislate from the bench.

Why have a SCOTUS, if Congress can pass a law today eliminating the 1st Amendment, but SCOTUS has no jurisdiction?

See above. But, has SCOTUS ever adjudicated the constitutionality of a legislated law without a case to test it first coming before the court? No. It may only adjudicate cases.


My problem with SCOTUS is when they go further and legislate from the bench.

Yes, indeed, another example of how SCOTUS' actions can be unconstitutional.

Chris
10-17-2012, 08:34 PM
With what I said above, I can agree in general. It is a balancing act.

Right, and a dangerous balance of powers because there is no where else to turn, is there, once SCOTUS has ruled?

Peter1469
10-17-2012, 08:34 PM
Yes, SCOTUS is by and large an appellate court (not entirely).