Thoughts on Kavanaugh?

[KMC]

If you are not a strict constructionist, then you should have no complaint here. After all, the Court has also found an imaginary right to marriage that states must acknowledge, an imaginary right to kill the soon-to-be-born, and an imaginary power of the general government to impose these imaginary rights.
But a strict constructionist of course requires the Court to properly apply the constitution on modern circumstances, recognizing again that individual rights Trump government power. So, while same gender couples have always had a right to “marry”, the is no enumerated power to force states to recognize any marriage.

I believe individuals have the right to associate for redress of grievances, hence the right to pool resources to support political candidates

I find it amazing that the same group of people that defend “rights” not found in the constitution (right to marry, right to kill the unborn) quickly dismiss actual rights actually written into the constitution (like their support of HHS mandate over the Little Sisters of the Poor, or their dismissal of the 2nd Amendment). I’ve even been accused of being a “10th-er” (it was used as a pejorative, much like “birther”) because I had the audacity to say “if its not found in the constitution, its up to the states”.

We need to know that the “rules of the game” are…if you believe in the 'living, breathing document" view of the constitution, there is no way to know the rules of the game because they get made up as the game goes on.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

If you are not a strict constructionist, then you should have no complaint here. After all, the Court has also found an imaginary right to marriage that states must acknowledge, an imaginary right to kill the soon-to-be-born, and an imaginary power of the general government to impose these imaginary rights.
But a strict constructionist of course requires the Court to properly apply the constitution on modern circumstances, recognizing again that individual rights Trump government power. So, while same gender couples have always had a right to “marry”, the is no enumerated power to force states to recognize any marriage.

I believe individuals have the right to associate for redress of grievances, hence the right to pool resources to support political candidates

I find it amazing that the same group of people that defend “rights” not found in the constitution (right to marry, right to kill the unborn) quickly dismiss actual rights actually written into the constitution (like their support of HHS mandate over the Little Sisters of the Poor, or their dismissal of the 2nd Amendment). I’ve even been accused of being a “10th-er” (it was used as a pejorative, much like “birther”) because I had the audacity to say “if its not found in the constitution, its up to the states”.

We need to know that the “rules of the game” are…if you believe in the 'living, breathing document" view of the constitution, there is no way to know the rules of the game because they get made up as the game goes on.

If the constitution is a “living, evolving “ document, then we are no different than the parliamentary democracies where rights are actually privileges bestowed and withdrawn by the tyranny of the majority.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Does Trump think Obama is not a citizen?

Papers, please.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Papers, please.

Are you saying Trump wants us all to carry our papers around? That is scary.

 

[Luke6_37]

Luke6_37:

The framers of the Constitution knew about corporations and they didn’t never considered them to be persons. How a strict constructionist gets around that, I don’t know.

How does a strict constitution find a government power to limit donations for political candidates?
That’s not there either, so there is no mandate for limiting corporations or unions from donating.

That said, if the general government limited itself to the enumerated powers, few would be moved to donate to candidates

Answering a question with a question is just a dodge.

To be consistent, the government should NOT limit campaign donations or give fictional people (i.e., corporations) rights that only real people should have.

It really is the height of hypocrisy for conservatives to complain about the liberals inventing government powers or human rights when that’s exactly what Scalia and the other conservative justices did in Citizens United.

 

[Luke6_37]

If you are not a strict constructionist, then you should have no complaint here. After all, the Court has also found an imaginary right to marriage that states must acknowledge, an imaginary right to kill the soon-to-be-born, and an imaginary power of the general government to impose these imaginary rights.

Marriage doesn’t count and fictional people have rights, but unborn human children do not.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Are you saying Trump wants us all to carry our papers around? That is scary.

It’s the law.

click here google you tube papers

 

[JonNC]

It really is the height of hypocrisy for conservatives to complain about the liberals inventing government powers or human rights when that’s exactly what Scalia and the other conservative justices did in Citizens United.

Actually they didn’t, and the real hypocrisy is speaking only about corporations when the ruling was about both corporations and unions.

Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.scot...ens-united-v-federal-election-commission/amp/

What they did was hold that political spending is a form of free speech. And by protecting the 1st amendment rights of individuals to donate to candidates, that this right also covers when they do so as groups, such as when corporations or unions spend money to try to persuade people about issues or candidates (though they can’t contribute directly to candidates). I frankly don’t see why people would oppose this.
Now let’s be honest here. The left has tried for a long time to get a campaign spending controlled by the state. Citizens United protects all citizens from having this 1st amendment right taken from us.
As usual, protecting individual rights seems to be the responsibility of the originalists, while progressives call it “hypocrisy “.

 

[Luke6_37]

As usual, protecting individual rights seems to be the responsibility of the originalists, while progressives call it “hypocrisy “.

All Supreme Court decisions are based on some argument that pits individual rights against state interference or constraint, so your statement can be applied to Roe v Wade as well. Protecting a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions without government interference is a lot more personal than free speech.

That’s why I don’t think appealing to individual rights alone is enough. One also needs to consider the impact on the Common Good or General Welfare, whatever you want to call it. No right is absolute. Reasonable restrictions on speech, gun ownership, and medical decision making can be imposed by the government in the interest of the Common Good.

I do think it is hypocrisy to hold a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution when it suits you, but then throw it to the winds under political pressure. The point I am trying to make isn’t about any particular Court decision, but about inconsistency in how legal reasoning is applied.

 

[JonNC]

All Supreme Court decisions are based on some argument that pits individual rights against state interference or constraint, so your statement can be applied to Roe v Wade as well. Protecting a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions without government interference is a lot more personal than free speech.

Nonsense. Free speech is an enumerated right. No other right permits you to kill another human being outside of self defense, which is what abortion does. And please don’t talk about making her own medical decisions if she expects tax dollars to pay for said medical decisions

 

[Ender]

To be consistent, the government should NOT limit campaign donations or give fictional people (i.e., corporations) rights that only real people should have.

It really is the height of hypocrisy for conservatives to complain about the liberals inventing government powers or human rights when that’s exactly what Scalia and the other conservative justices did in Citizens United.

You’ve gone on quite a bit about corporations having some of the rights of people, but it’s not something new that was just discovered in the last few decades. Nor does it appear to be as radical as you portray it. It appears to be justified by allowing corporations the protection of the law.

Corporations can sue and be sued under the law, just like people. The legal fiction that corporations are people allows the corporation to assert some basic 14th Amendment rights in court, including the right to due process and the right to equal protection. Whole bodies of law, such as environmental regulations, can be applied to corporations precisely because these business entities are treated like people in courts of law.

The rationale for treating corporations like people in a court of law dates back to the famous railroad cases of the 1800s, including Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Ellis. In that 1891 case, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “A state has no more power to deny to corporations the equal protection of the law than it has to individual citizens.”

 

[JonNC]

That’s why I don’t think appealing to individual rights alone is enough. One also needs to consider the impact on the Common Good or General Welfare, whatever you want to call it. No right is absolute. Reasonable restrictions on speech, gun ownership, and medical decision making can be imposed by the government in the interest of the Common Good.

If one steadfastly defends individual rights from government power, that best protects the common good. Obviously, rights do not extend into imposing on others’ rights. Those are reasonable limits.

 

[Luke6_37]

Nonsense. Free speech is an enumerated right.

I’m going to ignore the rest of your comments, because I don’t think they are relevant to this discussion.

My understanding of the designers intent in writing the Constitution was that they were crafting a document to limit the power of the government, rather that one that granted rights to individuals. The underlying philosophy being that human rights are endowed by the Creator, not the state.

The Bill of Rights, to which you are appealing, was added later, because many felt that certain rights had up to that time, been the special target of state interference or suppression and it was necessary to clarify from the start that these existed and their abuse by the crown is what sparked the repellion in the first place.

So the fact that a right is enumerated in the Constitution only means that it was important enough to the landed male elite of the 18th century to fight for. Not that it has any intrinsically special status.

 

[Luke6_37]

You’ve gone on quite a bit about corporations having some of the rights of people, but it’s not something new that was just discovered in the last few decades.

That was already addressed in a previous post…

Thoughts on Kavanaugh? World News

And CNN isn’t protected by the 1st. After all there was no tv in that time. This is an absurd argument rejected in the Heller decision It’s meant to be absurd. The Constitution was written more than 200 years ago. During that time, legal reasoning has evolved. Who would have thought back in the 18th century that we’d have instant communication like we do today? Who would have thought that we would be able to travel from one end of the country to another in just a few hours (even is you coun…

 

[KMC]

Protecting a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions without government interference is a lot more personal than free speech.

But its not enumerated, thus why doesn’t the 10th amendment apply?

 

[Luke6_37]

Luke6_37:

Protecting a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions without government interference is a lot more personal than free speech.

But its not enumerated, thus why doesn’t the 10th amendment apply?

I don’t think anything in the Bill of Rights applies to the states.

For a long time, states had established religions. For example, right after the Revolution, if you lived in MA you had to pay taxes to support your local Calvinist church and a priest risked the death penalty for saying Mass. The only reason why this is no longer true is that the Commonwealth changed it’s Constitution.

I think the Civil War & the amendments that came about as a result of it limited the power of the states as well. Especially the 14th Amendment.

 

[KMC]

KMC:

Luke6_37:

Protecting a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions without government interference is a lot more personal than free speech.

But its not enumerated, thus why doesn’t the 10th amendment apply?

I don’t think anything in the Bill of Rights applies to the states.

For a long time, states had established religions. For example, right after the Revolution, if you lived in MA you had to pay taxes to support your local Calvinist church and a priest risked the death penalty for saying Mass. The only reason why this is no longer true is that the Commonwealth changed it’s Constitution.

I think the Civil War & the amendments that came about as a result of it limited the power of the states as well. Especially the 14th Amendment.

I don’t see how your statement can ignore the plain language of the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

You tell me…what does this amendment mean?

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Yep that is what I think as well. Lots of outlets trying to bill him as conservative, but I’m not sold. I am especially not crazy that he was the one who gave Roberts the idea that the ACA was a tax so they could rule it constitutional. That was about as big of a judicial side step as you can get. I see him as another Roberts or Kennedy, which is why you won’t see the Democrats really fight his nomination.

 

[JonNC]

My understanding of the designers intent in writing the Constitution was that they were crafting a document to limit the power of the government, rather that one that granted rights to individuals. The underlying philosophy being that human rights are endowed by the Creator, not the state.

Exactly! And the constitution protects those rights by limited government to the powers granted to it in the document. Specifically, the enumerated powers. The constitution grants no rights. The government neither creates nor provides for rights.

The Bill of Rights, to which you are appealing, was added later, because many felt that certain rights had up to that time , been the special target of state interference or suppression and it was necessary to clarify from the start that these existed and their abuse by the crown is what sparked the repellion in the first place.

Exactly. Further limiting government power, and protecting not only the rights enumerated, but also other rights not enumerated (9th Amendment).

So the fact that a right is enumerated in the Constitution only means that it was important enough to the landed male elite of the 18th century to fight for. Not that it has any intrinsically special status.

I think the framers considered the rights enumerated as critical to a free society. That said, the 9th amendment makes clear that numerous rights do exist, and the 10th amendment is supposed to protect us the power and position of the states, further limiting the general government.

 

[anon10271182]

But but–perpetrators of violent home invasions, armed breaking and entering, street assaults, mass shootings, etc only carry muskets, right?