Presidential Candidate Thread: Is Ron Paul good for the country?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<p>I did not say that different people can follow different things, my original point is that the Constitution should be fluid and open to interpretation. I did not say that I should be allowed to rewrite the Constitution because I felt like it but rather that the document itself was left open and vague so as to allow for interpretation. </p>

<p>The Constitution has been interpreted fluidly and shifting for the past 200 years. Our society has changed along with those interpretation for good and for bad. The problem is that no one if a particular decision is "good" or "bad" until years later. I am sure that there were plenty of people in the deep south who were not so happy about the Brown decision but it is now accepted as canonical in our legal system. Conversely, the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional to intern Japanese American in WWII just a decade earlier. Same words, same Constitution but very different results.</p>
 
Again if it is open to interpretation than people CAN CHOOSE which parts they like and which parts they don't like. The writers of the constitution knew that changes would inevitably be made. Saying that it is Vague is absolutely ridiculous. The law is inherently non-vague.





What other legal docs are left open to interpretation? A family member's will? A contract? Mortgage documents?
 
<p>IC,</p>

<p>Thanks for the history lesson, but I know about the conflict between the Federalists and the Statists, Marshall is one of those wishful thinkers I referred to above, and the Civil Rights movement was greatly aided by the 24th Amendment as well as the Civil Rights Act, none of which support your view that the Constitution was intended to be vague and fluid. If that were the case, there wouldn't have been need for laws or an amendment, the Justices on the Supreme Court could have just intepreted the law out of thin air.</p>

<p>Honestly, are you really a lawyer? </p>

<p>Skip the random pulls from Wikipedia and show me the proof I asked for.</p>
 
<p>Nude,</p>

<p>If you are still bitter about Marshall than I really have nothing more to talk to you about. Marshall made his rulings and interpretations within 15-40 years of the enactment of the Constitution. I am going to argue that he knew more about the original intent of the Founding Father than anyone currently alive. Heck I am pretty sure he knew most if not all of them personally. Even if he did not follow the original intent of the Founding Father, he established Constitutional Law and how the Constitution is to be used in our country from his time to now.</p>

<p>24th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act were both important but it was Brown that overturned 80 years of racism and bigotry. The 24th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act came as a result of what the Supreme Court decided 10-15 years earlier, not the other way around. </p>

<p>I do not believen I have pulled a single wikipedia cite in our discussion. I do it because I do not have the time to spend on researching the Internet for a debate on a blog. Unfortunately, I have to work. I would have been more than happy to do that five years ago when I was in law school. </p>

<p>Nude, you are right. They gave me a bar card by mistake when I was applying for a library card. Sorry to mislead you like that. But of course, if John Marshall were having this debate with you, you would probably question the validity of his professional license as well.</p>
 
<p>IC,</p>

<p>I asked because you don't argue like a lawyer. I wasn't questioning your professional qualifications. In my tangles with other lawyers I get buried in cites, case law, and historical record. As you have pointed out, your posts rely more on appeal to authority than factual evidence which is what spurred my question. As for Marshall, I would (and do) question his judgement and motives, not his qualifications.</p>

<p>I'm sorry, but I don't see how bootstrapping your argument with <em>Brown v. Board of Education</em> really helps you. The SCOTUS found that black and white schools were inherently unequal, and as such violated the 14th Amendment. They didn't create new law, the applied very specific law to a new situation, based on the finding that there was inequality; they accepted the 14th exactly as it was written. How does this jive with your contention that the Constitution was purposely written to be vague and fluid?</p>

<p>One more thing about Marshall and his knowledge of the framer's original intent. He surely knew most of them, as his career in the military and politics brought him into contact with most of them at some point. But this quote makes it clear that Marshall was not in agreement with what they had in mind: </p>

<p><em>The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law. My construction of the constitution is very different from that you quote. It is that each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to 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.</em> - Thomas Jefferson, 1819</p>

<p>Does that sound like a founder who wrote a vague and fluid document that was merely menat to be a guideline?</p>
 
<p>Nude,</p>

<p>I wish I had the time to be more articulate but I simply do not anymore. Sorry. I had to force myself to cut down on visiting this site so I could go home at a reasonable hour.</p>

<p>14th amendment was the same when the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that separate was equal in the 1880s. Same amendment but polarly opposite result.</p>

<p>I think I will just let this clip explain my thoughts on original intent.</p>

<p> <a href="http://www.zanyvideos.com/media/family_guy_right_to_bear_arms.wmv">www.zanyvideos.com/media/family_guy_right_to_bear_arms.wmv</a></p>
 
Trust me IrvineCommuter, I haven't gotten hostile with you. There won't be any doubt if/when that ever happens.





The question was legitimate though. Lawyers are sworn to uphold the Constitution. But based on comments in this and other threads, it doesn't appear that you are even familiar with the document. The statements I have seen from you here are weak versions of weak liberal arguments. Since you seem to be confused about the content of the Constitution and the intent of the authors, after reading the Constitution, I strongly recommend that you read the Federalist Papers.
 
<i>"No one knows for sure what the Founding Father intended since no one alive was in Philly in 1789. "</i><p>


It is actually very easy to see what the founding fathers meant, intended and their principles. If you read the Federalist Papers, I think you will know exactly what they intended and why. You will see they intended just the opposite of a fluid, easy to change document. They intended to make it very difficult for the government to interfere in people's lives and tried to limit the federal government.
 
<p>Dang you people, keep sucking me back in.</p>

<p><em>If you read the Federalist Papers, I think you will know exactly what they intended and why. You will see they intended just the opposite of a fluid, easy to change document. They intended to make it very difficult for the government to interfere in people's lives and tried to limit the federal government.</em> </p>

<p>Sorry, awgee. . .the opposite is true. The Federalists advocated a strong federal government without any specific enumerated rights. The Anti-Federalists wanted to keep power with the states and actually pushed through the Bill of Rights over the objections of the Federalists. Jefferson and Patrick Henry were in fact anti-Federalist while Hamilton and James Madison were Federalists. John Marshall was a Federalist (appointed by Adams) and sought to greatly expand the powers of the Federal government. Jefferson (being the big state-power guy) cringed at the thought of the concepts like enumerated powers because he wanted the Federal government to only have powers specifically set forth in the Constitution. However, this is an extremely simplistic view of what happened in 1789-1791. </p>

<p>I would characterize the Constitution as a compromise between the Federalist and the anti-Federalist. (I know Wikipedia is not kosher for Nude but I found the article interesting: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights</a>) Thus, being a compromise, it would very difficult, if not impossible, to know what the drafters (and the ratifers) of the Constitution intended for the document to represent. Thomas Jefferson has one view of it while James Madison has another. </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>
 
For those of you interested in the enumerated powers discussion, I would refer you to <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/03.html#1">this legal history lesson</a>. I don't know if I agree or disagree with it, but it's better sourced than some of the stuff I've read on the subject, which lends it credibility in my eyes.
 
<p><em>Thus, being a compromise, it would very difficult, if not impossible, to know what the drafters (and the ratifers) of the Constitution intended for the document to represent. Thomas Jefferson has one view of it while James Madison has another.</em> </p>

<p>No, I think it's pretty easy to know, as it only takes reading their papers, letters, and statements to understand what they intended. Different view points do not indicate confusion or ambiguity, nor does it confirm your original contention that they wrote a purposely vague document that was intended to be a fluid set of guidelines. The Federalists wrote extensively about their intentions, explained their reasoning, and responded to their attackers. The anit-Federalists, if you will, did the same with the Bill of Rights. That Marshall later used his position to alter the outcome doesn't change the intentions of the Founders, nor does it prove your point. The only way to come to the conclusion that we can't know what they were thinking is by completely ignoring all the articles in the historical record that <strong>document what they said, how they voted, and what they wrote in support of their views</strong>. Having read as much of it as I can get my hands on, I personally have never found any person on either side of the argument that states your point of view. A view, I might add, that you have yet to offer any proof was the one shared by any of the Founding Fathers.</p>

<p>Your argument that compromise obfuscates intention is silly on it's face. Compromise is the result of groups with conflicting intentions reaching an agreement and in this case the intentions are well documented.</p>

<p> </p>
 
There's no "original intent". There was a large group of people involved in writing the Constitution, and every one of them had a different intent. In particular, the three authors of the Federalist papers have very different slants. Many of them no doubt had vague and ill-defined intents at that. This is very obvious from papers and ratification disputes at the time, which are full of vigorous arguments over exactly what consequences would arise from the Constistitution. In any case, the world is a very different place from what it was then. The Founding Fathers had no experience with, say, worldwide securitization fraud or widespread internet usage. Why would their intent be of use dealing with such problems?
 
<p><em>In any case, the world is a very different place from what it was then. </em><em>The Founding Fathers had no experience with, say, worldwide securitization fraud or widespread internet usage. Why would their intent be of use dealing with such problems?</em></p>

<p>It is of use in that it provides a framework for deciding court cases. Clearly they could not predict the invention of the internet, but that doesn't mean that the First Amendment doesn't apply to those citizens that use it. If we didn't care about intent one could argue that since the internet wasn't around in 1789, forums such as this are not protected from government restriction. Having knowledge of that original intent provides protection of free speech even in cyberspace. Furthermore, they knew that the future would bring about changes and situations they could not predict, which is why they included a process for later amendments to the Constitution. This wasn't an effort to create a vague and fluid document, it was a specific inclusion to provide specific changes as future circumstances dictated. They had ample oppurtunity to revise the document to be vague and fluid, as IC suggests, but every draft was more and more specific in it's language and in it's terms.</p>

<p>Again, let's skip the speculation and provide some evidence that a "purposively vague but fluid document" was the intent. Cartoons and logical fallacies aren't going to cut it.</p>
 
This has been an interesting discussion. One I am sure has been going on in one forum or another for over 200 years. It seems to me the whole argument of original intent is rather meaningless because even if it could be deciphered, it could still be wrong. Laws are fluid. Times change, peoples values change, and the law changes along with it. That is the way of things, and it always will be.
 
But human nature remains the same. The genius of the Constitution is that the writers recognized certain traits inherent in all human beings and designed a system that would prevent wide scale abuse.





Those who want to abuse the system are likely to say things like "it's vague" or "it's meant to be a living document".
 
Winex said:<em> "I have no Constitutional right to marry a horse".





</em>Why is it, whenever gay marriage is a topic.... marrying animals miraculously comes into the discussion. WTF?





I am not eloquent. I am a human being. I want the right to marry. I want that silly "All men are created equal" thingy....."pursuit of happiness" nonsense..... you know.





<a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/dixon_02.htm">An interpretation of the U.S. Constitution on same-sex marriage</a>





<a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html">The Declaration of Independence - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net</a>





Walk a mile in my shoes.....and then read the 14th Amendment.
 
Trooper, first of all, I apologize if I offended you. That was not my intention.





But in addition to not having the right to marry a horse, I don't have the right to marry a woman who is already married, and I don't even have the right to marry a woman that I am in love with.





The fact is that marriage is an legal arrangement that is a privilege controlled through the state through issuance of marriage licenses. So even though I can legally get married to a woman, I have no "right" to marriage.





A few other things to consider, as a legal contract, if I was suffering from dementia, I couldn't get married, nor could I enter into any other contract. I also can't marry a minor because you can't enter a contract with someone who hasn't reached the majority. I can't marry more than one woman. I can't marry a woman that is currently married to another man.





As ridiculous as it may sound, there are people who are attracted to animals (when I moved to California, I became aware of people who call themselves "furries". They are actually turned on by dressing like, or being with people who dress like animals). Why shouldn't the state be forced to license them to marry animals?





The simple fact of the matter is that the state grants people the privilege of marriage (and marriage licenses) because it wants to encourage stability in society. And whether you agree with it or not, the mores of society in this country at this point in time are such that the belief that a man and a woman settling down and starting a family is good for the community as a whole. In order to promote this stability, the state grants people the privilege to enter into the legal contract of marriage.





Again, no offense is intended. But absolutely no one has a right to get married.
 
A few more issues that I skipped.





You said " Walk a mile in my shoes.....and then read the 14th Amendment."





Thanks for the offer, but I don't wear womens shoes. But that's beside the point. Though I have read the entire Constitution numerous times, it never hurts to take another look. I assume that you are referring to the following part of the 14th Amendment:





"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"





Of course, as LendingMaestro pointed out earlier, you can get married. You would have to get married to a man, and you couldn't marry any man. (He would have to be single, live, of sound mind, an adult, ... ) But you can get married, and the same rules that apply to the rest of society would apply to you.





As for the Declaration of Independence, it really isn't applicable to the conversation.
 
Oh Winex, you were making so much so much sense . . . even talking about capacity to contract! And then you went with the animal thing. So for all y'all who wish to bring up horses (or box turtles like that jack@ss in Texas), please note: animals don't have the capacity to contract.





<em>>> I also can't marry a minor because you can't enter a contract with someone who hasn't reached the majority.</em>





Not true. The age of marriage consent in some states, with permission of a parent and/or judge, is as low as 13. Heck, up until recently, Kansas (your uber conservative peeps) <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12644597/">didn't even have a minimum age for marriage.


</a>


But given that you're a small government guy, maybe you and I could agree on this: the state shouldn't care if, or grant special privileges to, those who are married (or have kids for that matter). In fact, up until the 14th (15th?) century, no European state was involved in marriage. Only one's church was involved, and even then, the Catholic Church just took your word for it that you were married.





Or is it that you're all for governmental involvement, so long as it enforces your world view?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top