Detroit Councilwoman to Obama: We voted for you, now bail us out

[majorownage]

Actually, for me it's simple. Those who obey the constitution are friends or at least allies. Those who would violate it, enemies.

I totally agree. But people don't understand. They have a set of ideologies modified and adapted from whatever party they think they are a part of.

[Vertnut]

I totally agree. But people don't understand. They have a set of ideologies modified and adapted from whatever party they think they are a part of.

Which kind of goes along with opinions of the Constitution: Is it an ever-changing, adaptive document, or is it "set in stone" i.e. "The Ten Commandments"? Of course this division of opinion carries over into the Supreme Court, and usually determines a Supreme's vote on constitutional issues.

[Forever_frost]

Which kind of goes along with opinions of the Constitution: Is it an ever-changing, adaptive document, or is it "set in stone" i.e. "The Ten Commandments"? Of course this division of opinion carries over into the Supreme Court, and usually determines a Supreme's vote on constitutional issues.

Bingo. If you go with the living and breathing, you're an enemy.

[racrguy]

Bingo. If you go with the living and breathing, you're an enemy.

living and breathing as far as getting the wording changed? No.

As far as getting amendments added, struck down, or changed. Then yes. THAT'S HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO FUCKING WORK.

They left the avenue open so that the document can be changed over time, on purpose.

On purpose means they did it with reason. They weren't short sided enough to think that their list was exhaustive or the end all be all. Goddamn, read the fucking bill of rights.

[idrivea4banger]

Word.

[likeitfast55]

Talk to the UAW. They run the city, they should pony up.

Close Frost. The UAW ran the heavy industry out of Detroit. There is hardly anything left of the car industry there. Here is a great example of the Unions killing the hand that feeds them! It fed them very well for many years until it became "not worth it" for the big 3.

[Forever_frost]

living and breathing as far as getting the wording changed? No.

As far as getting amendments added, struck down, or changed. Then yes. THAT'S HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO FUCKING WORK.

They left the avenue open so that the document can be changed over time, on purpose.

On purpose means they did it with reason. They weren't short sided enough to think that their list was exhaustive or the end all be all. Goddamn, read the fucking bill of rights.

Living and breathing means interpreting what it says through today's BS wording. If you're going to change it through amendment, that is actually a constitutionalist view and is the only way to change it. I had to sit down and actually explain an Article 5 convention today

[YALE]

Bingo. If you go with the living and breathing, you're an enemy.

Even though founding fathers that wrote about its needing to change with the people? What about amendments passed later? Should those be ignored?

[Forever_frost]

Even though founding fathers that wrote about its needing to change with the people? What about amendments passed later? Should those be ignored?

If the constitution is amended, no. If you're ignoring or interpreting it, yes. If you truly believe something needs addressed, call a Constitutional Convention or pass an amendment.

How hard is this to figure out? I'm pretty sure everyone here knows my view on this.

[YALE]

If the constitution is amended, no. If you're ignoring or interpreting it, yes. If you truly believe something needs addressed, call a Constitutional Convention or pass an amendment.

How hard is this to figure out? I'm pretty sure everyone here knows my view on this.

So what role should the judicial branch play in government?

[Forever_frost]

Would you like me to post up Article 3? You are aware the SC is VERY limited on what it is supposed to hear, right?

[Forever_frost]

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.
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.

[YALE]

That says, "all cases," a lot, so it doesn't seem very limited.

[racrguy]

That says, "all cases," a lot, so it doesn't seem very limited.

He posts that article, then questions the power of the SCOTUS to determine if something is constitutional.

Not sure if srs, trolling, or really that dumb.

[Forever_frost]

No, they can determine if something is constitutional. Absolutely. These cases where the fed sues the states, should have the SC as their first stop. Same thing when states sue one another or when Calderone decides to sue Az. They also can't decided that since the person isn't making a good case for themselves, they'll find for the government using an argument that the government isn't even using (Obamacare as a tax instead of what the government claimed).

Same for Roe Vs Wade. They had no authority.