Dems keeping "score"?

[msmith198025]

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/72889-pelosi-rahm-do-not-scare-rep-defazio


Rep. Peter DeFazio’s phone rang. On the other end was Rahm Emanuel.

The White House chief of staff last month expressed frustration with DeFazio’s resignation calls for President Barack Obama’s top two economic aides — Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and White House chief economist Larry Summers — and appealed for cooperation, according to DeFazio.

But Emanuel, known for his blunt manner and ability to bend members of his party to his will, did not raise his voice with the Oregon Democrat.


“Rahm does not yell at me,” DeFazio said, “because he knows that I yell back.”


Others are learning that DeFazio, who has served in the House since 1987 and describes himself as a “progressive populist,” is not easily intimidated. He has emerged in recent months as one of the most vocal liberal critics of the Obama administration, blasting the president’s team for not getting tough enough with Wall Street. He’s also taken on his own party for failing to move left-leaning legislation through the Congress.


Personal calls from Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and former Vice President Al Gore couldn’t persuade him to vote for the Speaker’s climate change bill. He also opposed the $787 billion stimulus, citing concerns that only 7 percent was devoted to infrastructure spending.


Obama himself has taken notice.


“Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother,” Obama told DeFazio during a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, according to members afterward.


But poking a stick at those in power is what DeFazio does.

[fallout2600]

Damn right they are keeping score, we already know the WH operates on paying Senators and Reps off with hard cash. They have to know who to pay off next...

[towerclimber]

I actually like this guy, as much as I know about him..hey may not believe the same as I do, but he has integrity..as much as I've seen.
hell, I'd vote for a golfball if it had integrity..sadly there are so many in DC that just don't have it!
they've sold their credibility and honesty to the highest bidder..or they're like mark sanford.
I really dislike that republican butthole.
I mean...how can you find your soulmate when you're already married you Jackass!!!
I don't know about you folks...but I have taken 2 oaths in my lifetime.
1 was to defend the constitution of the USA..the other was to love and look after my wife. no where in that oath was there a caveat that said "until you find someone more compatible".
I will honor both of those oaths, simply because I made them before God and man.

the politicians in DC need to be transient. always transient.

[Skyhi]

I will also be taking an oath to defend the Constitution of the USA. I'm not even sure what that means......my interpretation? SCOTUS' current interpretation? Who knows? Where do you stand on that?

[Bear Paws]

I will also be taking an oath to defend the Constitution of the USA. I'm not even sure what that means......my interpretation? SCOTUS' current interpretation? Who knows? Where do you stand on that? Now see, if you where a strict constructionist you wouldn't need a interpretation. The Constitution is written in as plain a language as possible to be understood by the common man. Its judicial interpretation that has turned it into un-understandable gobbledygook. "You guys" have made a shameful industry of it.

Is as plain as the ten commandments. Only those that want to subvert either apply "intention".

[Skyhi]

Now see, if you where a strict constructionist you wouldn't need a interpretation. The Constitution is written in as plain a language as possible to be understood by the common man. Its judicial interpretation that has turned it into un-understandable gobbledygook. "You guys" have made a shameful industry of it.

Is as plain as the ten commandments. Only those that want to subvert either apply "intention".
The constitution is an ambiguous document. What makes a search and siezure unreasonable? What is cruel and unusual punishment? How fast is a speedy trial? What is "just compensation" w.r.t. eminent domain? How high can bail be until its "excessive"? What is due process of law?

These are obvious ambiguities in the bill of rights. The ambiguities continue throughout the document and become more complicated. Interpretation is a must - - even for strict constitutionalists.

[vurbano]

I will also be taking an oath to defend the Constitution of the USA. I'm not even sure what that means......my interpretation? SCOTUS' current interpretation? Who knows? Where do you stand on that?May God Save us all from Lawyers like you

[Skyhi]

May God Save us all from Lawyers like you
Nobody has answered the question so far.

[HDRoberts]

The constitution is an ambiguous document. What makes a search and siezure unreasonable? What is cruel and unusual punishment? How fast is a speedy trial? What is "just compensation" w.r.t. eminent domain? How high can bail be until its "excessive"? What is due process of law?

These are obvious ambiguities in the bill of rights. The ambiguities continue throughout the document and become more complicated. Interpretation is a must - - even for strict constitutionalists.

Exactly my point from another thread about why bills tend to be so long. Oh, sure, in "plain language" you may know exactly what you thing it means. But it needs to be understood and/or interpreted by others.

[Skyhi]

Exactly my point from another thread about why bills tend to be so long. Oh, sure, in "plain language" you may know exactly what you thing it means. But it needs to be understood and/or interpreted by others.
Yes. A good bill HAS to be long in order to save it from inevitable judicial interpretation.

[fallout2600]

How is interpretation needed for "the right to bear arms". Sounds plain and simple to me, I can own guns. What about "Freedom of speech", pretty damn simple, no censorship. When lawyers and judges start to dissect it, then they are reducing liberty, plain common sense.

[Skyhi]

How is interpretation needed for "the right to bear arms". Sounds plain and simple to me, I can own guns. What about "Freedom of speech", pretty damn simple, no censorship. When lawyers and judges start to dissect it, then they are reducing liberty, plain common sense.
Are electronic messages "speech"? I sure hope so, but that requires interpretation. What did the founding fathers mean when they said excessive bail? How about cruel and unusual punishment? See more examples in my post above.

[HDRoberts]

How is interpretation needed for "the right to bear arms".

What are arms? Just guns? What about chemical and biological weapons? Nuclear bombs? Artillery? Can I build my own cruise missile?

Can criminals carry guns? I see nothing there that bans that. How about the mentally unstable?

How about the part about a well regulated militia? Seems, in such a simply worded document, those words have meaning, too. Yet they are ignored by most.

[markh]

How is interpretation needed for "the right to bear arms". Sounds plain and simple to me, I can own guns. What about "Freedom of speech", pretty damn simple, no censorship. When lawyers and judges start to dissect it, then they are reducing liberty, plain common sense.

You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You can't libel someone. What constitutes libel? Along with the other stuff mentioned, it's just not that simple.

[vurbano]

You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

The constitution talks about yelling fire?

[msmith198025]

Yes. A good bill HAS to be long in order to save it from inevitable judicial interpretation.

Thats a crock. It HAS to be long? IMO, making it more straightfoward and to the point leaves less room for interpretation. Of course there will always be some.

The length and lawer talk is there so that nobody but the crooks that wrote it can tell you what it means, and even then we dont really know.

[msmith198025]

Exactly my point from another thread about why bills tend to be so long. Oh, sure, in "plain language" you may know exactly what you thing it means. But it needs to be understood and/or interpreted by others.

And in lawyer speak, you dont even think you know what it means. In many cases even other people versed in that "language" cant even understand it. Not to mention the fact that most of it is not read in entirety before being voted on because of this.

[HDRoberts]

Thats a crock. It HAS to be long? IMO, making it more straightfoward and to the point leaves less room for interpretation. Of course there will always be some.

The length and lawyer talk is there so that nobody but the crooks that wrote it can tell you what it means, and even then we dont really know.

Saying something is simple and straightforward is easy. But in reality, when you are saying there can be no interpretation, you have simply already interpreted the language and just assume all come to the same conclusion. Or, you ignore questions regarding how the law would be administered.

I'd love to see you write a short bill for single payer heath, like was being offered at 700 pages, and we will be happy to show you all the ways your statements can be interpreted.

How about an example. When the state of Texas banned gay marriage, they used a simple wording, all of two sentences. As it turns out, the wording bans all marriage.


Sec. 32. MARRIAGE.

(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

Last I checked, marriage was identical to marriage, and therefore, not recognizable. But if only they used wordier language so they could say exactly what them meant, they would not have such a quandary.

[msmith198025]

I said there would always be SOME interpretation, I just said there would be LESS with a straightforward model instead of this crap they shovel now.

In your example they could have left out part B. Problem solved. There was no need for it to be there since it clearly defined "marriage" in the first part. More reason to be simple and leave out unneeded words. Thanks for proving my point :D

[Skyhi]

Thats a crock. It HAS to be long? IMO, making it more straightfoward and to the point leaves less room for interpretation. Of course there will always be some.

The length and lawer talk is there so that nobody but the crooks that wrote it can tell you what it means, and even then we dont really know.
The Constitution is a great example of a short, straightforward document that is anything but clear (I believe that was the intention). Complicated bills MUST be long to close off any potential loopholes. Why do you think the tax code is so long? The more loopholes they close, the longer it gets.

[msmith198025]

The Constitution is a great example of a short, straightforward document that is anything but clear (I believe that was the intention). Complicated bills MUST be long to close off any potential loopholes. Why do you think the tax code is so long? The more loopholes they close, the longer it gets.

I think you could write a straightforward tax code that is FAR shorter and decisive with very few loopholes. Granted, I have never tried, but how about this.

Everyone pays 10%, period.

Thats a pretty good start, any loopholes that may arise go from there. Bet you end up shorter than the current system

[Skyhi]

I think you could write a straightforward tax code that is FAR shorter and decisive with very few loopholes. Granted, I have never tried, but how about this.

Everyone pays 10%, period.

Thats a pretty good start, any loopholes that may arise go from there. Bet you end up shorter than the current system
10% of what? Much of the current code simply defines income. Couldn't get rid of those "definitions."

[msmith198025]

10% of what? Much of the current code simply defines income. Couldn't get rid of those "definitions."

Define it how you (the writer) wants.

I am not going to sit and write a new tax code right here obviously, lol. And I am not saying you wouldnt have several pages, if not several hundred. I am saying, based on what I have seen of the tax code, which is very little, much could be condensed down and be plainer.

[msmith198025]

Why am I not shocked that the lawyer on the board wants it all written in lawyer speak? LMAO, job security sky?

[Skyhi]

Define it how you (the writer) wants.

I am not going to sit and write a new tax code right here obviously, lol. And I am not saying you wouldnt have several pages, if not several hundred. I am saying, based on what I have seen of the tax code, which is very little, much could be condensed down and be plainer.
I am intimately familiar with the tax code and I honestly don't think it could be substantially trimmed down without (1) adopting a new method of taxation (not income) or (2) opening loopholes that will be abused.

I do not disagree with you that it can be a confusing mess....

[Skyhi]

Why am I not shocked that the lawyer on the board wants it all written in lawyer speak? LMAO, job security sky?
Lol! I'm actually paging through my copy of the tax code right now, and I wouldn't even say its written in lawyer speak.....it's just tedious and complicated.

[msmith198025]

I am sure then that you are FAR more familiar with it than me, but I just think that it, along with every other law that we write, could by much much simpler and shorter and at least as effective as we have now, if not moreso.

Using bigger words does not in any way make a document better. Nor does using more in most cases. Of course that is just my opinion.

[msmith198025]

Lol! I'm actually paging through my copy of the tax code right now, and I wouldn't even say its written in lawyer speak.....it's just tedious and complicated.

I keep my copy in my back pocket. I am gonna pull it out later for a refresher course;)

[Skyhi]

I am sure then that you are FAR more familiar with it than me, but I just think that it, along with every other law that we write, could by much much simpler and shorter and at least as effective as we have now, if not moreso.

Using bigger words does not in any way make a document better. Nor does using more in most cases. Of course that is just my opinion.
I disagree regarding the tax code and I want to keep harping on the short, simple, and ambiguous Constitution.

[Skyhi]

I keep my copy in my back pocket. I am gonna pull it out later for a refresher course;)You must have some big pants! :) I use mine as a paperweight on my desk. :)

[msmith198025]

You must have some big pants! :) I use mine as a paperweight on my desk. :)

I do sit at an angle. It is hell on the back.

[Bear Paws]

The Constitution is a great example of a short, straightforward document that is anything but clear (I believe that was the intention). Complicated bills MUST be long to close off any potential loopholes. Why do you think the tax code is so long? The more loopholes they close, the longer it gets. Its always been clear to me. Protect my inalienable rights from those that would take them from me. Namely the government.. But then again I'm only a trucker and don't have some fancy law degree on my wall saying I'm smarter than the framers. What they didn't teach you in liberal...errrr excusa... law school.. The Judge says it better than I can.. This should be day one in every law school and high school.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nyJs-IdNz0&feature=player_embedded

[stevenl]

You want an easier tax code? Then support he Fair Tax

[Skyhi]

Its always been clear to me. Protect my inalienable rights from those that would take them from me. Namely the government.. But then again I'm only a trucker and don't have some fancy law degree on my wall saying I'm smarter than the framers. What they didn't teach you in liberal...errrr excusa... law school.. The Judge says it better than I can.. This should be day one in every law school and high school.

I know you can make fun of lawyers, criticize judges who are forced to interpret an ambiguous document, and post Glen Beck videos, so why cant you tell me what cruel and unusual punishment is? What excessive bail is? etc...

[stevenl]

Being forced to watch FOX news for more then a hour is pretty cruel..

[Bear Paws]

I know you can make fun of lawyers, criticize judges who are forced to interpret an ambiguous document, and post Glen Beck videos, so why cant you tell me what cruel and unusual punishment is? What excessive bail is? etc...Clear as day
“Unusual” to mean “contrary to long usage.” Over and above what the legislators, local communities, States or Federal, have deemed appropriate for such crimes. That a judge (or jury for that matter) alone can not exceed that which the law allows for, for persecution purposes of a individual and abides accordingly to law set forth as in the past as in like cases and has usually been done until the legislator rewrites the laws with out regard to punishment for a specif crime or person .. I can't remember whats that is called. Bill of attainder?

Now don't get all personal on me. You know its in jest. What did you think "the Judge's" read on the "rights".

[Bear Paws]

Being forced to watch FOX news for more then a hour is pretty cruel..Education for some has always been a hardship...

[froggigger]

Education for some has always been a hardship...

:free-happy-smileys- :thumbup:

[stevenl]

More like de-education... I think its a proven fact that FOXNews channel kills brain cells..

[Skyhi]

Clear as day
“Unusual” to mean “contrary to long usage.” Over and above what the legislators, local communities, States or Federal, have deemed appropriate for such crimes. That a judge (or jury for that matter) alone can not exceed that which the law allows for, for persecution purposes of a individual and abides accordingly to law set forth as in the past as in like cases and has usually been done until the legislator rewrites the laws with out regard to punishment for a specif crime or person .. I can't remember whats that is called. Bill of attainder?

Now don't get all personal on me. You know its in jest. What did you think "the Judge's" read on the "rights".
But the Constitution exists to PROTECT us from legislators!!!! Using your logic, if a State legislature prescribed the death penalty for stealing a stick of gum, it wouldn't be cruel and unusual. Thank God we have Constitutional Protection and judges who are willing to reasonably interpret it.

What if a local legislature decided to define "arms" as all weapons that can hold no more than 4 bullets at a time? You'd be OK with that because it was decided upon by the elected legislature? Hell no you wouldn't. You'd be crying out for a Judge to interpret the 2nd amendment.

[vurbano]

But the Constitution exists to PROTECT us from legislators!!!!And Lawyers who want to read things into it or change it by writing very long pieces of legislation. Its very short, concise and easily understood except by the knucle dragging left wing lawyers.

[Skyhi]

And Lawyers who want to read things into it or change it by writing very long pieces of legislation. Its very short, concise and easily understood except by the knucle dragging left wing lawyers.
What makes a search unreasonable?

[markh]

The constitution talks about yelling fire?

No. It doesn't talk about libel, either. Now, should I tell you what I think of you or would you run to a mod or sue me? :free-happy-smileys-

[Salsadancer7]

More like de-education... I think its a proven fact that FOXNews channel kills brain cells..

It's informal former spy talk for brain washing....:Shh:

[Bear Paws]

It's informal former spy talk for brain washing....:Shh: No.. no.. we call the Re-education..;)

[Bear Paws]

But the Constitution exists to PROTECT us from legislators!!!! Using your logic, if a State legislature prescribed the death penalty for stealing a stick of gum, it wouldn't be cruel and unusual. Thank God we have Constitutional Protection and judges who are willing to reasonably interpret it.

What if a local legislature decided to define "arms" as all weapons that can hold no more than 4 bullets at a time? You'd be OK with that because it was decided upon by the elected legislature? Hell no you wouldn't. You'd be crying out for a Judge to interpret the 2nd amendment.
Noooo, it exists to protect us from the government. Its to prevent those in government authority like judges and bureaucrats to enforce laws beyond or to exceed that which the legislators give them. The legislators are our representatives. 2ndly, WE don't hire and fire the judges that interpret the constitution.... Again the legislators do.... Well at least through their/our consent anyways.

So its our responsibility to choose the legislators that represent our wishes as a majority. It is written...in the Constitution... as plain as day.. I'm not certain where the constitutionality of the SCOTUS authority to legislate came from.. I can't find that in the Constitution. I think the theory or mode of thought developed from a elite group of lawyers thinking they where gods in their robes...

Death for stealing a pack of gum if legislated just like Pot laws would be the law just as there are a lot of laws "I hell no" now.. but have no choice but obey and enforce... If the people disagree then its up to the people to vote out the legislators and vote in those that would change the law that we agree upon.. I keep hoping with my activism I can get enough votes to throw some of these excessive government freaks out of the legislator as we speak.. It is written..

No.. I would not be crying for a judge to interpret the 2nd amendment.. That law would be unconstitutional and no interpretation is necessary. The constitution does not give the legislator the authority to define arms and to restrict them . Nowhere. Unfortunately its the hysterical anti gun moon bat crowd that wants a interpretation or rather a re-interpretation. The 2nd is as clear as day...The militia at the time of writing was the people and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." as is the 1st where it says "no law' meaning no law... How hard is that. A cruise missile is not a "Arms" as is not a mortar because they where not considered arms back then.. A hand gun and a long gun was..

If there where not those that would want to reinterpret the Constitution for their own benifit and just followed its original wording and construct there wouldn't be all these strange reiterations of law. Most would be deemed unconstitutional.. The problem is that there are those that want to make or reinterpret the Constitution fit their law rather than the original intent of creating law to fit the constitution.

For all my ideologies and beliefs there is nothing in the Constitution that I read as not understandable,applicable and enforceable today in its plain language as written as it was in my youth when it was first written. I don't see the problem. Its a perfect Charter or blue print for the United states. These where simple men with simple ideas of right and wrong about whom should govern and be governed and how with the natural rights of a truly free man as the paramount consideration at all times. Everything you read in that constitution and need to know about what it says boils down to the basic understanding that your rights end where my rights begin.. What is so difficult about that.. I have a degree in simple.

[froggigger]

Noooo, it exists to protect us from the government. Its to prevent those in government authority like judges and bureaucrats to enforce laws beyond or to exceed that which the legislators give them. The legislators are our representatives. 2ndly, WE don't hire and fire the judges that interpret the constitution.... Again the legislators do.... Well at least through their/our consent anyways....

...For all my ideologies and beliefs there is nothing in the Constitution that I read as not understandable,applicable and enforceable today in its plain language as written as it was in my youth when it was first written. I don't see the problem. Its a perfect Charter or blue print for the United states. These where simple men with simple ideas of right and wrong about whom should govern and be governed and how with the natural rights of a truly free man as the paramount consideration at all times. Everything you read in that constitution and need to know about what it says boils down to the basic understanding that your rights end where my rights begin.. What is so difficult about that.. I have a degree in simple.

The Constitution is a great document but the Confederate Constitution improved on it tremendously. I have wondered what it would be like today if we lived under it instead of the one we all know and love.

[Skyhi]

Death for stealing a pack of gum if legislated just like Pot laws would be the law just as there are a lot of laws

No.. I would not be crying for a judge to interpret the 2nd amendment.. That law would be unconstitutional and no interpretation is necessary.
Thank God you're not a judge that has to INTERPRET the constitution. You just said a law that prescribes the death penalty for stealing a pack of gum would NOT be unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment, while a law banning guns that hold more than 4 bullets would be unconstitutional. Looks like you're doing some interpretation yourself (whether you'll admit it or not).

[Skyhi]

So its our responsibility to choose the legislators that represent our wishes as a majority. It is written...in the Constitution... as plain as day.. I'm not certain where the constitutionality of the SCOTUS authority to legislate came from.. I can't find that in the Constitution. I think the theory or mode of thought developed from a elite group of lawyers thinking they where gods in their robes...

They don't legislate - - they interpret. If a Draconian gun-ban was passed in Congress and SCOTUS invalidated it on Constitutional grounds, would you still be critical because they're "legislating" from the bench?

[Skyhi]

No.. I would not be crying for a judge to interpret the 2nd amendment.. That law would be unconstitutional and no interpretation is necessary. The constitution does not give the legislator the authority to define arms and to restrict them . Nowhere.
"Arms" is ambiguous and needs to be defined. You tried to define it yourself.....you said it doesn't include Cruise Missiles. Well I disagree. I think it includes ALL missiles, tanks, and biological weapons. I must have a broader definition of "arms" than you. Neither one of us is right or wrong. Reasonable minds can disagree. Looks like some sort of interpretation/definition will be necessary.

[stevenl]

Bear I think the Lawyer wins this argument.

You say Cruel and Unusual is only what the legislature says it is.. But yet you say They cant say what arms is?

[Skyhi]

For all my ideologies and beliefs there is nothing in the Constitution that I read as not understandable,applicable and enforceable today in its plain language as written as it was in my youth when it was first written. I don't see the problem. Its a perfect Charter or blue print for the United states. These where simple men with simple ideas of right and wrong about whom should govern and be governed and how with the natural rights of a truly free man as the paramount consideration at all times. Everything you read in that constitution and need to know about what it says boils down to the basic understanding that your rights end where my rights begin.. What is so difficult about that.. I have a degree in simple.
I disagree. These were not simple men. They were brilliant men who created a brilliant document that (1) laid the groundwork for a revolutionary style of government while at the same time (2) were wise enough to leave it ambiguous so it could be applied 200+ years in the future.

Imagine if they would have defined "arms" or "speech." Think of how limited those definitions would be today....we either wouldn't have many of the rights we enjoy today, or (more likely) the Constitution would have been amended beyond recognition.

[froggigger]

They don't legislate - - they interpret. If a Draconian gun-ban was passed in Congress and SCOTUS invalidated it on Constitutional grounds, would you still be critical because they're "legislating" from the bench?

Courts regularly legislate. The Founders intended the Legislative branch to be the weakest arm of government, but that has changed. Big time.

BTW, your example isn't valid. The court ruled the new law was unconstitutional. That's interpretation, not legislation. Here's an example of legislation:

District Judge Russell Clark, in 1987, ordered a tax increase so the Kansas City school system could "remedy vestiges of segregation".

[Skyhi]

Courts regularly legislate. The Founders intended the Legislative branch to be the weakest arm of government, but that has changed. Big time.

BTW, your example isn't valid. The court ruled the new law was unconstitutional. That's interpretation, not legislation. Here's an example of legislation:

District Judge Russell Clark, in 1987, ordered a tax increase so the Kansas City school system could "remedy vestiges of segregation".

My example isn't valid? It was a hypothetical. If you want a real life case where SCOTUS overruled a gun ban (though not on 2nd amendment grounds), read US vs. Lopez.

A four word quote from a 22 year old case is meaningless. How many pages was his decision? Was it held up on appeal? Had the Judge previously ordered the legislature to take action to remedy the unconstitutional segregation? It's not all that unusual for a Judge to order the Legislature to remedy an unconstitutional law/policy, and if the legislature fails to act, the Judge will issue a court order.

[froggigger]

My example isn't valid? It was a hypothetical. If you want a real life case where SCOTUS overruled a gun ban (though not on 2nd amendment grounds), read US vs. Lopez.

A four word quote from a 22 year old case is meaningless. How many pages was his decision? Was it held up on appeal? Had the Judge previously ordered the legislature to take action to remedy the unconstitutional segregation? It's not all that unusual for a Judge to order the Legislature to remedy an unconstitutional law/policy, and if the legislature fails to act, the Judge will issue a court order.

Hypothetical or not, it was still invalid because it was an interpretation and not a legislative action. SCOTUS overruling a gun ban is an interpretative action in both cases.

In the case of Judge Clark, "how many" and "was if" is irrelevant. He ordered a tax increase, a legislative action. What happened afterward doesn't diminish from the fact that he assumed the power to order a tax increase that, constitutionally, he had no authority to order. Clark clearly overstepped his authority. Unfortunately, it's not all that unusual these days. BTW, the tax increase order was struck down by a federal appeals panel.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n1_v42/ai_8294989/

[Bear Paws]

Bear I think the Lawyer wins this argument.

You say Cruel and Unusual is only what the legislature says it is.. But yet you say They cant say what arms is? And this apparently pleases you why???

[DodgerKing]

Bear I think the Lawyer wins this argument.

You say Cruel and Unusual is only what the legislature says it is.. But yet you say They cant say what arms is?
Lawyers win all arguments, no matter which side they argue from. :05:

[Skyhi]

Hypothetical or not, it was still invalid because it was an interpretation and not a legislative action. SCOTUS overruling a gun ban is an interpretative action in both cases.

Have you read the thread? :D My hypothetical was intended to show interpretation! Here's my quote:


They don't legislate - - they interpret. If a Draconian gun-ban was passed in Congress and SCOTUS invalidated it on Constitutional grounds, would you still be critical because they're "legislating" from the bench?

[Bear Paws]

Thank God you're not a judge that has to INTERPRET the constitution. You just said a law that prescribes the death penalty for stealing a pack of gum would NOT be unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment, while a law banning guns that hold more than 4 bullets would be unconstitutional. Looks like you're doing some interpretation yourself (whether you'll admit it or not).A judge doesn't need to interpret the constitution in the chewing gum case. The law as written by the legislator. If the judge or jury finds him guilty the penalty is death. The judge can not exceed the punishment that which is allowed by law as that would be cruel and unusual. Its up to the legislator to rewrite the law and punishment... not the judge, speaking of legislating from the bench.

That's why we have repeat child molesters out on the loose to abuse and kill a child next time. Its a two fold problem... The bleeding heart judges are limited by the bleeding heart legislators to the cruel and unusual punishment I would like to make them give those depraved reprobates. On one hand the legislator doesn't give enough punishment but in the cases it does it give the judges too much latitude in the sentencing to let these perverts run loose. I swear I think some of these judges and legislators are sympathetic because of brotherhood.

The Constitution gives the legislator the authority to write law regarding crimes against the state, country, and its people. No where does the constitution give anyone the right to prevent the people from possessing arms (guns). You owning a gun does not infringe on my rights in any ways... As a matter of fact it prohibits the legislator, and by extension the government, from writing laws prohibiting bearing arms and specifically makes it not a crime by making it a right. I'm not even certain that they can constitutionally restrict or deny a criminal from bearing arms. It doesn't stop them anyways.. its just piling on...like a "possession'' charge is really going to make a difference in a murder trial sentencing.. I however have no problem of increasing the punishment for the use of a fire arm during a commission of a crime because that infringes or restricts on my right to defend my possession or self. Its the crime against me that makes the possession greater violate my rights.

Do you or any of the bleeding hearts really think that gun laws really keep guns out of the bad guys hands. No.... just out of those whose hands are clean. Especially banning all guns is a ignorant think as it gets. Living in NYC as a kid there where kids making "zip" guns out of TV antennas and match heads.. The pipe guns with a spike where lethal..

[msmith198025]

have you read the thread? :d my hypothetical was intended to show interpretation! Here's my quote:

:D

[Bear Paws]

My example isn't valid? It was a hypothetical. If you want a real life case where SCOTUS overruled a gun ban (though not on 2nd amendment grounds), read US vs. Lopez.

A four word quote from a 22 year old case is meaningless. How many pages was his decision? Was it held up on appeal? Had the Judge previously ordered the legislature to take action to remedy the unconstitutional segregation? It's not all that unusual for a Judge to order the Legislature to remedy an unconstitutional law/policy, and if the legislature fails to act, the Judge will issue a court order.
Yeah... like in Massachusetts and the gay marriage issue..speaking of legislating from the bench. There was no ambiguity in the law for him to order a remedy. The law was the precedent of "usual" treatment.. The judge wanted the remedy to include gay marriage or "unusual". IOW "you make it legal or I will"...

[Skyhi]

A judge doesn't need to interpret the constitution in the chewing gum case. The law as written by the legislator. If the judge or jury finds him guilty the penalty is death. The judge can not exceed the punishment that which is allowed by law as that would be cruel and unusual. Its up to the legislator to rewrite the law and punishment... not the judge, speaking of legislating from the bench.
Please don't take offense :), but you're flat out wrong. The Constitution exists to protect us from ALL of the branches of government - - - not just the judicial branch. If the legislature passed a law giving the death penalty for stealing a pack of gum, it would clearly have to be stricken down as unconstitutional. The legislature is not free to pass whatever kind of laws the want with no regard to the constitution.

Using your logic, what if the legislature passed a law enslaving all Hispanics.....you'd say to yourself "Oh well......thats what the legislature wants....." That's not how it works. The judicial branch serves as a check to ensure the legislature doesn't abuse our Constitutional rights.


The Constitution gives the legislator the authority to write law regarding crimes against the state, country, and its people. No where does the constitution give anyone the right to prevent the people from possessing arms (guns).
Yes. The Constitution gives the legislature the authority to write laws - - - the laws they write, however, must be Constitutional. They cannot write laws that prescribe cruel and unusual punishment, excessive bail, etc. just like they cannot write laws that ban "arms." There is absolutely no difference. You're sadly mistaken if you think there is.
[/QUOTE]

[Skyhi]

Yeah... like in Massachusetts and the gay marriage issue..speaking of legislating from the bench. There was no ambiguity in the law for him to order a remedy. The law was the precedent of "usual" treatment.. The judge wanted the remedy to include gay marriage or "unusual". IOW "you make it legal or I will"...
I didn't follow the Mass. gay marriage issue. Did the State pass a law banning gay marriage?

[Bear Paws]

I didn't follow the Mass. gay marriage issue. Did the State pass a law banning gay marriage?No.. You could marry... It just did not recognize or force the same benefits to gay as it did conventional...
Matter of fact the legislator won't even allow it on a ballot for the people to referendum speaking of "commonwealth".. Challenged under the provision which prohibits the use of an initiative petition for "reversal of a judicial decision" but that failed because it was ruled it would not change that has been (those already married), but only the future.. After many tries it still has not gone to referendum. Its a mess just because of judicial activism.

There was nothing in the way of conveying the rights and privalages so long they did not call it a marriage. That which is "usual" and not unusual between a man and a women..

[towerclimber]

Please don't take offense :), but you're flat out wrong. The Constitution exists to protect us from ALL of the branches of government - - - not just the judicial branch. If the legislature passed a law giving the death penalty for stealing a pack of gum, it would clearly have to be stricken down as unconstitutional. The legislature is not free to pass whatever kind of laws the want with no regard to the constitution.

Using your logic, what if the legislature passed a law enslaving all Hispanics.....you'd say to yourself "Oh well......thats what the legislature wants....." That's not how it works. The judicial branch serves as a check to ensure the legislature doesn't abuse our Constitutional rights.


Yes. The Constitution gives the legislature the authority to write laws - - - the laws they write, however, must be Constitutional. They cannot write laws that prescribe cruel and unusual punishment, excessive bail, etc. just like they cannot write laws that ban "arms." There is absolutely no difference. You're sadly mistaken if you think there is.
[/QUOTE]

I beg to differ. apparently the legislature thinks it can write whatever it chooses and call it a law.

otherwise they wouldn't be foisting this health care bill on us. no where in the constitution does it mandate that the federal government regulate health care.
no where in the constitution does it give them ANY mandate to do anything but regulate trade, provide for a common defense and institute tariffs.
The constitution also makes provisions so that all states are equal under the law. this health care bill negates that because of the partisan dealings that allow SOME states to have their cost increases paid for by federal monies.
this is a serious constitutional breach. It's also in violation of state sovereignty.


The executive branch (on both sides of the political spectrum) have packed the judicial branch with ringers.
no longer is rule of law respected. why? because of political partisanship.

Notice how washington DC responded to the scotus ruling in Heller vs. DC?

they ignored it.

they're not a state, they're a district. they should be the ones MOST beholden to federal laws..but they ignore those that don't suit them.

[Skyhi]

I beg to differ. apparently the legislature thinks it can write whatever it chooses and call it a law.

otherwise they wouldn't be foisting this health care bill on us. no where in the constitution does it mandate that the federal government regulate health care.
no where in the constitution does it give them ANY mandate to do anything but regulate trade, provide for a common defense and institute tariffs.
The constitution also makes provisions so that all states are equal under the law. this health care bill negates that because of the partisan dealings that allow SOME states to have their cost increases paid for by federal monies.
this is a serious constitutional breach. It's also in violation of state sovereignty.
If I had to guess, I bet the legislature would argue its powers to regulate health comes from either the general welfare clause of the interstate commerce clause.

Was the money paid by the Us Govt. through FEMA to New Orleans a "serious constitutional breach?" Here's a book I've recommended to people on this site in the past. I think it should be required reading for every American....especially those that like to discuss the Constitution. I promise that it's fair and balanced. See if your library has it.

Amazon.com: Constitutional Law: Principles And Policies (Introduction to Law Series) (9780735557871): Erwin Chemerinsky: Books


Notice how washington DC responded to the scotus ruling in Heller vs. DC?

they ignored it.

they're not a state, they're a district. they should be the ones MOST beholden to federal laws..but they ignore those that don't suit them.
I haven't paid attention to how DC has responded to Heller. Are they still enforcing the statute that SCOTUS determined to be an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd amendment? If that's the case, I'm sure a lower court will issue an order ordering DC to stop enforcement...........when that happens I wonder if Bear Paws and Co. will complain about legislating from the bench.

[fallout2600]

Ski, what is the current obession with emergency money going to disaster areas being unconstitutional. I don't see the correlation between govt run mandated required healthcare and emergency money. Is it constitutional? Of course it isn't. No where in the Constitution is a clause that gives the power to the Fed govt to create FEMA. Also, we'd have to find where the money they pump into disaster areas come from. But I could name many things that are abuses of Fed govt power. It doesn't mean we need to keep growing the govt and infringing on liberty. If we do, we eventually are left with one thing: tyranny. But I will say this, disaster money is an example of a stimulus package that actually works.

[Skyhi]

Ski, what is the current obession with emergency money going to disaster areas being unconstitutional. I don't see the correlation between govt run mandated required healthcare and emergency money. Is it constitutional? Of course it isn't. No where in the Constitution is a clause that gives the power to the Fed govt to create FEMA. Also, we'd have to find where the money they pump into disaster areas come from. But I could name many things that are abuses of Fed govt power. It doesn't mean we need to keep growing the govt and infringing on liberty. If we do, we eventually are left with one thing: tyranny. But I will say this, disaster money is an example of a stimulus package that actually works. I disagree with you about FEMA being unconstitutional, but that's another discussion.

The reason I keep bringing up disaster money is because towerclimber continues to complain that the proposed health care bill will be unequal among the States as some states with transfer more money out than they take in..........I am pointing out to him that there is nothing new about this and I'm using FEMA disaster relief as an example.

[vurbano]

disaster money is just another government give away. People living in places like NO are simply rolling the dice. If they gamble and get bailed out then so should every schmoe that loses his house in Vegas.

[stevenl]

Your right. Makes much more sense to move everyone to areas that natural disasters do not hit.. Which areas is that?

[vurbano]

Your right. Makes much more sense to move everyone to areas that natural disasters do not hit.. Which areas is that?

It went right over your head as usual. We should not pay to move ANYONE anywhere. We should stop bailing people out that choose to live below sealevel or below the 100 year flood elevation.

[HDRoberts]

disaster money is just another government give away. People living in places like NO are simply rolling the dice. If they gamble and get bailed out then so should every schmoe that loses his house in Vegas.

Hey, I agree with Vurb on something.:free-happy-smileys-