Wonder where the ACLU stands on this IRS deal ?

[Maddhattter]

Actually they did.

No, they didn't. Again, see jurisprudence.

My examples prove the SC can and often is wrong and when it decides powers that aren't enumerated it's wrong 100% of the time.

No. Your example only proves the two points I made above. You have not demonstrated that the SCOTUS is often wrong, nor that they have no authority to make the rulings.

The SC did not come the the conclusion that was different than the founders on slavery, an amendment established that it was unconstitutional.

Ok, I'll concede this.

The SC has no interpretative power. None. They can evaluate a law based on what the constitution says but cannot interpret the constitution itself. If a clause can be expanded beyond the amendment it is attached, then there is no need for enumerated powers.

You are, in effect, stating that they must not be able to read to perform their duties as reading is the act of interpretation. No one, by definition, can evaluate a text without interpreting it. There is no way to avoid this. In order to evaluate a law based on the constitution, the SCOTUS must, by necessity, be able to interpret both the law and the constitution. Without that authority, they cannot exercise their enumerated powers.

[Forever_frost]

Actually I did. Their authority is lined out in the constitution. They are limited to ONLY what they are given under the wording of the Constitution. Just as they had no possible constitutional authority to authorize internment, they have no authority to say that the amendment that clearly states "Congress shall make no law" means anyone BUT Congress. Same thing with "Shall not be infringed." You can't spin it to make it say anything but what it states. Anything further or trying to claim the constitution says something it clearly doesn't is an unconstitutional overreach.

I'm arguing the constitution and it's wording. You're arguing that since the SC granted itself power, it's somehow legal. It's not. The Founders were clear what branch does what and what the powers of the federal government is as well as the protections of the citizens against it.

Yes you can read the constitution without coming up with an interpretation. You look at the words of the document. If you're still confused, you read what the people who wrote it wrote in their writings. You compare that to the law in question. At no point do you 'interpret' the constitution. If I have you sign a contract, you can't come back several years later saying "Well the definition of that word was x when I signed it but language has changed and I think it should mean Y." Doesn't work like that. The constitution is a contract between the federal government, it's 3 branches, the states and the people. It doesn't permit any branch to create more power than is granted.

[Maddhattter]

Actually I did. Their authority is lined out in the constitution. They are limited to ONLY what they are given under the wording of the Constitution.

They exercised the authority granted by the constitution, so you've not demonstrated that the SCOTUS have no authority to make the rulings.

Just as they had no possible constitutional authority to authorize internment,

They stated internment was constitutional when it was challenged. Were they right? I think we agree that they weren't. But, even if they made a mistake, they were exercising their authority granted by the constitution. Still 2 items doesn't make the SCOTUS wrong often, only on those two items. So, you have still not demonstrated they are often wrong.

they have no authority to say that the amendment that clearly states "Congress shall make no law" means anyone BUT Congress.

Which just goes to show that you don't understand jurisprudence. SCOTUS interpreting the constitution has been occurring since Washington was president. Even Jefferson even stated that the branches of government, and by extension the SCOTUS, should "decide for itself what is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially, where it is to act ultimately and without appeal." Seeing that the issue is one that is "a case arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States", they would be able to interpret and rule on the matter.

Same thing with "Shall not be infringed." You can't spin it to make it say anything but what it states. Anything further or trying to claim the constitution says something it clearly doesn't is an unconstitutional overreach.

While I disagree with the definition they chose, infringe has multiple definitions and they any could apply. Again, the constitution must, by necessity, be interpreted in order for the SCOTUS to use it to evaluate laws against.

I'm arguing the constitution and it's wording.

We both are.

You're arguing that since the SC granted itself power, it's somehow legal.

No, I'm not.

The Founders were clear what branch does what and what the powers of the federal government is as well as the protections of the citizens against it.

And, in this case, there's yet to be an indication that the SCOTUS has done nothing more than explicitly limit what the government can do.

Yes you can read the constitution without coming up with an interpretation. You look at the words of the document.

No, you can't. The writing has no meaning without interpretation. That's how reading, even listening, works.

If you're still confused, you read what the people who wrote it wrote in their writings. You compare that to the law in question. At no point do you 'interpret' the constitution.

If you cannot interpret, you cannot read. It's axiomatic. Unless you can find a way to get the information of what's on the paper to another person without any means of communication, that it requires interpretation.

If I have you sign a contract, you can't come back several years later saying "Well the definition of that word was x when I signed it but language has changed and I think it should mean Y." Doesn't work like that.

Actually, that happens. It's also grounds for the modification or nullification of contacts. It's also allowed for contractors to demand more of the contracted because definitions change. That's why, in modern contracts, words are explicitly defined the first time they are used.

The constitution is a contract between the federal government, it's 3 branches, the states and the people. It doesn't permit any branch to create more power than is granted.

No additional power was granted. If anything, SCOTUS is limiting what the government can to by explicitly stating what it cannot, i.e. show favoritism of one religion over another. After all, I don't see the enumerated right for the government, or it's entities, to display or maintain any religious affiliation, preference, or articles in any fashion nor use religious articles in any proceedings of any kind. So, the SCOTUS ruling that it's unconstitutional for the government to do so should be wholly supported by you. I doubt, however, that your complaint is that they are using the establishment clause to justify limiting the government's actions to it's enumerated power.

[Forever_frost]

I understand history and what has been done. I also understand the actual words of the constitution, the supreme law of the land that establishes the powers of the federal government and limits it to only what is enumerated, putting all other authority into the states. I have asked for constitutional citation granting the power of the supreme court to rule that an amendment that states that Congress cannot engage in an action means that another body cannot do it either. You have no provided that authority. Please do. I offer to you the words of the 1st amendment as written.

You offer what constitutional authority?

[Maddhattter]

I understand history and what has been done. I also understand the actual words of the constitution, the supreme law of the land that establishes the powers of the federal government and limits it to only what is enumerated, putting all other authority into the states. I have asked for constitutional citation granting the power of the supreme court to rule that an amendment that states that Congress cannot engage in an action means that another body cannot do it either. You have no provided that authority. Please do. I offer to you the words of the 1st amendment as written.

You offer what constitutional authority?

I've linked the SCOTUS's authority twice in this thread. I've even explained how one cannot read without interpreting, no matter how much someone claims that they understand the actual words, and even if they could somehow read without interpreting, they must be able interpret to be able to rule on the constitutionality of any law.

As far as explaining why the establishment clause extends to the rest of the government I don't have to explain anything. SCOTUS already has explained why they ruled that way, so there is no point in me repeating it. You can just look at the cases that have been ruled on to find out why.

Again, if you feel they've done something they have no authority to do, file a lawsuit and get it overturned. Simple as that.

I am still confused as to why you are arguing that the SCOTUS is wrong is restricting the government from doing something that it has no enumerated right to do... I'm also still wondering if you, or anyone else, name one example of the ACLU working to prevent religions from being exercised or challenging the people's right to have faith?

[Forever_frost]

And I've offered to actually post up the constitutional authority granted to them as well as the wording of the amendment in question.

I am arguing that A) They have no authority to interpret the constitution and
B) The Constitution is clear on the restriction. It is limiting the federal government, not states, not cities. By stating "Congress shall not" it is very clear and could not possibly be any clearer.

The states do not have enumerated rights, they have much broader powers recognized under the 10th amendment.

[Maddhattter]

And I've offered to actually post up the constitutional authority granted to them as well as the wording of the amendment in question.

You could, but it wouldn't help anything. That issue's already been covered in a previous thread, linked here and doesn't support your position.

I am arguing that A) They have no authority to interpret the constitution

Then you're arguing that they cannot read it either, as reading requires interpretation. It's not possible to have one without the other, by definition.

and
B) The Constitution is clear on the restriction. It is limiting the federal government, not states, not cities.

Then you argue against the constitution, because under the Incorporation doctrine, the Bill of Rights has been broadly applied to limit state and local government as well, via the Due Process. If it didn't apply to the state and local governments, we would have no actual protection for our rights.

By stating "Congress shall not" it is very clear and could not possibly be any clearer.

The states do not have enumerated rights, they have much broader powers recognized under the 10th amendment.

This is where incorporation comes in.

So, just to be clear, you're no longer asserting that the ACLU is working to prevent religions from being exercised or challenging the people's right to have faith?

[Forever_frost]

Actually the incorporation doctrine seems to be one of those things that the SC uses when it feels like it. If that was actually the law, no level of government would be able to establish ANY gun laws at all. As there are gun laws that are largely upheld by the SC (because they can't seem to understand shall not be infringed), incorporation is not being used. You can't lackadaisically apply it. Either incorporation applies to all levels of the constitution or none.

Which is it?

[Maddhattter]

Actually the incorporation doctrine seems to be one of those things that the SC uses when it feels like it. If that was actually the law, no level of government would be able to establish ANY gun laws at all. As there are gun laws that are largely upheld by the SC (because they can't seem to understand shall not be infringed), incorporation is not being used. You can't lackadaisically apply it. Either incorporation applies to all levels of the constitution or none.

Incorporation only applies to the bill of rights, so it does not apply to all levels of the constitution.

On incorporation covering the second amendment, I agree with you and, per McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), so does the SCOTUS.

Stating that no gun laws would be applicable (while I agree with you that the most restrictive definition of infringed should be used) is not necessarily accurate as it does depend on the definition of infringe being used.

Also, just to be clear, you're no longer asserting that the ACLU is working to prevent religions from being exercised or challenging the people's right to have faith?

[Forever_frost]

You see Hatter, i always enjoy debating with you. While I don't always agree with you, it is always educational. I have the utmost respect for you and your intellect.

Back to the fun: The intention of the 2nd amendment was to provide a way for the citizenry to remove a government. To believe that the founders would hand the government they were putting checks on to limit the weapons that would be used to remove them is foolish. Following that train of thought, if incorporation is being applied equally (as it has to if it's the law), that means that the second amendment is for removing ALL levels of government and thus, since the second amendment is written to remove them, the Founders granted zero authority to limit it, thus the only time the words "shall not be infringed" is added in the document.

Oh no, I'm still asserting that the ACLU might as well be the Atheist and Communist Liberal Union and they make it a point to try to remove religion any place it's found and have no interest in actually protecting other civil rights such as the second amendment.

[Maddhattter]

You see Hatter, i always enjoy debating with you. While I don't always agree with you, it is always educational. I have the utmost respect for you and your intellect.

Back to the fun: The intention of the 2nd amendment was to provide a way for the citizenry to remove a government. To believe that the founders would hand the government they were putting checks on to limit the weapons that would be used to remove them is foolish. Following that train of thought, if incorporation is being applied equally (as it has to if it's the law), that means that the second amendment is for removing ALL levels of government and thus, since the second amendment is written to remove them, the Founders granted zero authority to limit it, thus the only time the words "shall not be infringed" is added in the document.

While I agree with you on this concept, the constitution does not explicitly state that the people have the right to bear any arms they please, only that there is a right to actually bear arms. The word infringe has different definitions which would allow the limiting of which weapons you can own would not infringe on your right to bear arms. So, it can be interpreted differently with no change in the words. I think that these are incorrect interpretations, but they valid ones.

Oh no, I'm still asserting that the ACLU might as well be the Atheist and Communist Liberal Union and they make it a point to try to remove religion any place it's found and have no interest in actually protecting other civil rights such as the second amendment.

Then can you, or anyone else, name one example of the ACLU working to prevent religions from being exercised or challenging the people's right to have faith?

[racrguy]

The ACLU is a force for evil!

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-aclu-sues-over-nsa-surveillance-20130611,0,4567996.story

The American Civil Liberties Union announced Tuesday that it has filed a federal lawsuit against key members of President Obama’s national security team over the National Security Agency’s telephone surveillance, the first legal challenge to the newly disclosed intelligence gathering system.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in New York, argues that the NSA’s ongoing, daily collection of virtually all Verizon telephone records is unconstitutional and should be stopped.

"This dragnet program is surely one of the largest surveillance efforts ever launched by a democratic government against its own citizens," Jameel Jaffer, ACLU deputy legal director, said in a statement. "It is the equivalent of requiring every American to file a daily report with the government of every location they visited, every person they talked to on the phone, the time of each call, and the length of every conversation.”

As a Verizon customer, the ACLU claims that the NSA’s seizure of telephone records “compromises sensitive information about its work” and harms its ability to freely communicate.

The Guardian newspaper last week published an order, marked “Top Secret,” from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that requires Verizon to turn over all “telephony metadata,” or records of each call, over a three-month period. Lawmakers later said the program has been in operation nonstop for seven years under similar court orders.

The White House has come under harsh criticism for the NSA’s deal with Verizon, as well as the so-called PRISM program, which was designed to secretly obtain emails, photos, documents and other online material from foreign nationals. A former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, has claimed responsibility for leaking both programs.

The administration has strongly defended the surveillance systems, saying they are approved by Congress and the courts, and thus within the law.

Obama "believes as commander-in-chief that the oversight structures that are in place to ensure that there is the proper review of the kinds of programs that we have in place, authorized by Congress through the Patriot Act, and FISA do strike that balance,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday.

[jw33]

and boom goes the dynamite.

[Forever_frost]

The ACLU is a force for evil!

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,4567996.story

I saw that. I guess the ACLU doesn't like being spied upon.