Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on Feb 27, 2009 13:08:23 GMT -5
I will wager that, when the Voting Rights Act passes both houses (and it will because Democrats don't believe in the Constitution), the Supreme Court will delay its implementation until it hears the case. And, this court (assuming its makeup is not changed before it hears the case) will find it unconstitutional. And, of course, like you liberals like to say when it supports your aims, that establishes a precedence that should be followed by later courts (I confess, I don't believe a precedence should necessarilly be followed by later courts). The Court will not hear the merits of the case. There is no party who could bring standing in this case as I understand current case law. It is similar to how there was no one who had standing to bring suit regarding Obama's citizenship. Therefore, this Court, regardless of it's makeup, will not decide the issue. They are very good at ducking issues of merit.
|
|
|
Post by fsohoya on Feb 27, 2009 13:10:54 GMT -5
WHAT!? Sorry 'bridge, but our representatives take a little thing called "an oath": "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States." I know the Constitution is meaningless to some people when it gets in their way, but it would be nice to at least remember for a moment that the federal government is supposed to abide by that little document. Support the Constitution is different from interpret its meaning. Yes, but in this case the meaning couldn't be more clear, as almost every poster on this thread has ackowledged and only the most ideologically blinded politician could deny.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Feb 27, 2009 13:21:49 GMT -5
I will wager that, when the Voting Rights Act passes both houses (and it will because Democrats don't believe in the Constitution), the Supreme Court will delay its implementation until it hears the case. And, this court (assuming its makeup is not changed before it hears the case) will find it unconstitutional. And, of course, like you liberals like to say when it supports your aims, that establishes a precedence that should be followed by later courts (I confess, I don't believe a precedence should necessarilly be followed by later courts). Stare decisis: www.lectlaw.com/def2/s065.htmSorry ed, applies to libs and cons alike
|
|
|
Post by fsohoya on Feb 27, 2009 14:04:06 GMT -5
Sorry to you, Coast2Coast. From your own link:
"It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle."
Especially if we are looking at decisions "contrary to principle" (or, perhaps, even the actual wording of the Constitution) there are lots of court decisions in need of overturning.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Feb 27, 2009 14:29:59 GMT -5
I will wager that, when the Voting Rights Act passes both houses (and it will because Democrats don't believe in the Constitution), the Supreme Court will delay its implementation until it hears the case. And, this court (assuming its makeup is not changed before it hears the case) will find it unconstitutional. And, of course, like you liberals like to say when it supports your aims, that establishes a precedence that should be followed by later courts (I confess, I don't believe a precedence should necessarilly be followed by later courts). Let me just add that I'm so glad to find so many conservatives rediscovering the Constitution. Was it stuffed between some couch covers for the last 8 years?
|
|
|
Post by fsohoya on Feb 27, 2009 14:37:59 GMT -5
I will wager that, when the Voting Rights Act passes both houses (and it will because Democrats don't believe in the Constitution), the Supreme Court will delay its implementation until it hears the case. And, this court (assuming its makeup is not changed before it hears the case) will find it unconstitutional. And, of course, like you liberals like to say when it supports your aims, that establishes a precedence that should be followed by later courts (I confess, I don't believe a precedence should necessarilly be followed by later courts). Let me just add that I'm so glad to find so many conservatives rediscovering the Constitution. Was it stuffed between some couch covers for the last 8 years? Funny, but liberals haven't noticed it since the New Deal.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Feb 27, 2009 14:46:07 GMT -5
Let me just add that I'm so glad to find so many conservatives rediscovering the Constitution. Was it stuffed between some couch covers for the last 8 years? Funny, but liberals haven't noticed it since the New Deal. Funny, but completely inaccurate. The New Deal and the Lochner court's demise had a great deal to do with the demise of the legal formalism that underlied the Contract Clause and Commerce Clause decisions of the Supreme Court. Liberal ideas that a strict interpretation of the contract clause should be limited in interpretation by the need of the state to undertake valuable development project was first discussed by the Supreme Court in the 1837 case of Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge. Of course, you don't care about that, you were just making a political point.
|
|
|
Post by fsohoya on Feb 27, 2009 14:56:04 GMT -5
I'll stick with West Coast Hotel v. Parrish -- the famous "switch in time" case -- as the turning point for the Court, and if you'd care to review the overall record of rulings you'd see that I am right. That said, my point is about politics -- both liberals and conservatives have largely ignored the Constitution if it has gotten in the way of what they've wanted, but liberals have done so since the 30s.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Feb 27, 2009 15:26:58 GMT -5
Funny, but liberals haven't noticed it since the New Deal. Funny, but completely inaccurate. The New Deal and the Lochner court's demise had a great deal to do with the demise of the legal formalism that underlied the Contract Clause and Commerce Clause decisions of the Supreme Court. Liberal ideas that a strict interpretation of the contract clause should be limited in interpretation by the need of the state to undertake valuable development project was first discussed by the Supreme Court in the 1837 case of Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge. This is an incredibly boring response with no comedic value whatsoever. I award it no points and blah, blah, blah......
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Feb 27, 2009 15:36:22 GMT -5
Sorry to you, Coast2Coast. From your own link: "It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle." Especially if we are looking at decisions "contrary to principle" (or, perhaps, even the actual wording of the Constitution) there are lots of court decisions in need of overturning. Sorry to me for what? All I was saying was that stare decisis isn't a liberal fantasy---there are several cases I'd LOVE to see overturned. Actually, I'd be up for adopting the Scottish model altogether (i.e. that all precedent is persuasive not mandatory, probably the one area where Scalia and I kinda agree....that dude loves limited decisions to the facts of a particular case), but we're stuck with the English it seems.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on Feb 28, 2009 18:39:02 GMT -5
Support the Constitution is different from interpret its meaning. Yes, but in this case the meaning couldn't be more clear, as almost every poster on this thread has ackowledged and only the most ideologically blinded politician could deny. Who has ideology? I merely pointed out what was going to happen, not that I endorsed it.
|
|
|
Post by lightbulbbandit on Mar 1, 2009 18:54:00 GMT -5
Lightbulb said it all when he said "I think the issue as to whether the act is constitutional, ignoring any possible attachments, should be the only thing congressmen and senators consider when deciding whether to vote for this bill.' In an earlier post I quoted the particular sections of the constitution involved. Every Representative and Senator, as well as the President of the United States must swear or affirm to support the Constitution of the United States - but 61 Senators voted to ignore it. For the record, Max Baucus of Montana and Robert Byrd of West Virginia were the only Democrats to vote for the constitution while six Republicans (Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar, George Voinovich, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Spector) ignored the constitution. When we have Senators completely ignoring the constitution, no wonder we have such a mess in Washington. Well that is half of what I said ed. The other half of the statement you reference is that if a Congressman or Senator, asserts that he is only against the DC Voting Rights Act because he thinks it takes a constitutional amendment, then he better be standing up to present the proposed amendment. It appears Sen. Murkowski stepped up to the plate in that regard, good for her. I cannot figure out why somebody would oppose the proposed amendment outside of the obvious desire to keep another Democrat-controlled seat out of Congress. But I would like to think a majority of the US supports withholding representation solely because we do not like who they would send. Secondly, the reason I posted that conversation is to show that the line of thought which states the DC Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional, is not as cut and dry as possible (unless one also asserts that the Air Force is unconstitutional). I seem to remember the logic class at Georgetown teaching me that one counterexample is enough to disprove the validity of an argument/assertion. You assert that 61 senators decided to "ignore" the constitution. More accurately, 61 senators disagreed with your argument about the constitutionality and agreed with the counterargument crudely stated in my post above. I have yet to see anyone who voted for the bill say, "I don't care that it is unconstitutional, I want it to be law." I refuse to read motives into the actions of others without obvious evidence, regardless of who I feel about their actions.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 1, 2009 19:15:30 GMT -5
Lightbulb said it all when he said "I think the issue as to whether the act is constitutional, ignoring any possible attachments, should be the only thing congressmen and senators consider when deciding whether to vote for this bill.' In an earlier post I quoted the particular sections of the constitution involved. Every Representative and Senator, as well as the President of the United States must swear or affirm to support the Constitution of the United States - but 61 Senators voted to ignore it. For the record, Max Baucus of Montana and Robert Byrd of West Virginia were the only Democrats to vote for the constitution while six Republicans (Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar, George Voinovich, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Spector) ignored the constitution. When we have Senators completely ignoring the constitution, no wonder we have such a mess in Washington. Well that is half of what I said ed. The other half of the statement you reference is that if a Congressman or Senator, asserts that he is only against the DC Voting Rights Act because he thinks it takes a constitutional amendment, then he better be standing up to present the proposed amendment. It appears Sen. Murkowski stepped up to the plate in that regard, good for her. I cannot figure out why somebody would oppose the proposed amendment outside of the obvious desire to keep another Democrat-controlled seat out of Congress. But I would like to think a majority of the US supports withholding representation solely because we do not like who they would send. Secondly, the reason I posted that conversation is to show that the line of thought which states the DC Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional, is not as cut and dry as possible (unless one also asserts that the Air Force is unconstitutional). I seem to remember the logic class at Georgetown teaching me that one counterexample is enough to disprove the validity of an argument/assertion. You assert that 61 senators decided to "ignore" the constitution. More accurately, 61 senators disagreed with your argument about the constitutionality and agreed with the counterargument crudely stated in my post above. I have yet to see anyone who voted for the bill say, "I don't care that it is unconstitutional, I want it to be law." I refuse to read motives into the actions of others without obvious evidence, regardless of who I feel about their actions. All I know is what the constitution says. Each Senator can read, can't they? If this is not a clear statement that the House is to be composed of representatives of STATES, then I wonder why we even have a constitution if 61 Senators can ignore the words. This is not an interpretation, it's disregarding it.
|
|
|
Post by lightbulbbandit on Mar 1, 2009 20:09:39 GMT -5
All I know is what the constitution says. Each Senator can read, can't they? If this is not a clear statement that the House is to be composed of representatives of STATES, then I wonder why we even have a constitution if 61 Senators can ignore the words. This is not an interpretation, it's disregarding it. Then please explain why your rule of interpretation does not state the Air Force is unconstitutional, since we are not ignoring the words of the Constitution.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 2, 2009 13:39:13 GMT -5
I will wager that, when the Voting Rights Act passes both houses (and it will because Democrats don't believe in the Constitution), the Supreme Court will delay its implementation until it hears the case. And, this court (assuming its makeup is not changed before it hears the case) will find it unconstitutional. And, of course, like you liberals like to say when it supports your aims, that establishes a precedence that should be followed by later courts (I confess, I don't believe a precedence should necessarilly be followed by later courts). The Court will not hear the merits of the case. There is no party who could bring standing in this case as I understand current case law. It is similar to how there was no one who had standing to bring suit regarding Obama's citizenship. Therefore, this Court, regardless of it's makeup, will not decide the issue. They are very good at ducking issues of merit. I have a representative in Congress. He is one of 435. His voting power, and his representation of me, is diminished by adding an unconstitutional voting member of the House. Standing? Also, could a member of Congress have standing? The Comptroller General apparently had standing in Bowsher v. Synar to challenge an arguably unconstitutional law affecting his powers.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 2, 2009 13:40:45 GMT -5
And actually, I still don't see any legitimate reason for Utah to be getting a seat. I know it's necessary to win Republicans over, but from any other approach, I fail to see the logic. Clearly it's a compromise. But what's the difference between 436 and 437? Plus, Utah was next in line, according to the last census, to get another seat in Congress.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 2, 2009 14:06:24 GMT -5
All I know is what the constitution says. Each Senator can read, can't they? If this is not a clear statement that the House is to be composed of representatives of STATES, then I wonder why we even have a constitution if 61 Senators can ignore the words. This is not an interpretation, it's disregarding it. Then please explain why your rule of interpretation does not state the Air Force is unconstitutional, since we are not ignoring the words of the Constitution. If you can't see the difference between DC getting a vote in Congress and the constitution NOT stating that the country has the right to have an Air Force, it will be difficult to give you an answer. I'll try. The constitution does not state a lot of things. It doesn't state there will be a Securities and Exchange Commission; or an IRS; or a White House; or a Pentagon; or a Martin Luther King holiday; or many, many other things that have been established by law. But it does state that Representative are to be from the STATES. A question for you: why was it necessary to pass an amendment to give D.C. the right to vote in national elections?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2009 14:16:19 GMT -5
I'm no lawyer (and certainly not a Constitutional lawyer), but the phrase "the several States" is interpreted to include DC in several parts of the Constitution. Apparently, it would be an atrocity to apply a similar interpretation to DC voting rights.
I'd prefer an amendment, but do we have to disenfranchise 600,000 people in the meantime when there's precedent for such an interpretation? Or can I have my 2001-2008 federal income taxes back?
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 2, 2009 15:26:41 GMT -5
Anyone care to comment on the Constitutionality of Utah getting an At-Large member? How is it constitutional for citizens of Utah to each have two members in the House?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 2, 2009 17:11:45 GMT -5
Anyone care to comment on the Constitutionality of Utah getting an At-Large member? How is it constitutional for citizens of Utah to each have two members in the House? Where, in the Constitution, does is it say the manner by which states have to elect representatives? As far as I can tell, the states are free to chose how they elect their reps (aside from obvious restrictions) subject to regulations passed by Congress (but not in the Constitution). Utah could have two districts and the rest of the members could be at large and not be unconstitutional (it may violate a federal statute). A similar arrangement works fine for the DC council, why not a US State? I believe Texas, as late as the 1960s, had (off and on) at large reps.
|
|