Thread: Welcome to our Post-Constitutional America.

Originally Posted by Hocus Pocus

I'm sorry but you're talking out of your ass. We're talking about checkpoint being unconstitutional and you flip that into corporate greed? We're not even in the same realm.

Not really. In my opinion they are definitely connected.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Yes, really. We live in a country where the President can make proclamations that exceed their authority (see any of Executive orders as examples), announce selective enforcement of laws passed by congress (see obamacare). In a country where our federal agencies regularly illegally search, seize, and/or store private data of innocent individuals with no probable cause, and can take a citizen against his or her will and without due process (which that provision in the NDAA is again illegal and unconstitutional). In a country where even the Supreme Court regularly misappropriates the intent of congress in their review of laws they are asked to rule on the constitutionality of (see the Obamacare decision and specifically Chief Justice Roberts' opinion as an example) in order to support or deny in bald face the political goals and influence of the other branches. In a country where the 10th amendment is regularly ignored, where the second amendment is seen as a "guideline" and where the rest of the bill of rights is really only ever subjectively applied, again often based on the political aspirations of those involved. There's obviously more, so much more to point out, but I'll stop in the interest of brevity.

The bottom line is that yes, this is unfortunately a post-constitutional republic. We can fix that. By we I mean we the people. But before we do, people like you are going to really need to give a shit about the facts at hand. If you won't, then things will keep getting worse. The United States government and most local governments as well have gone far beyond the boundaries set for them by the constitution. They are going to continue in that direction until we say no with our vote and collective voices. You point to "legal precedent" and decisions by the Supreme Court that are clearly troublesome in terms of their reach and scope in redefining laws they are called to review, and sit there and act like it's all good. Well I'm saying it's not all good.

Honestly, I don't know how to respond to this other than:

You don't get to decide what the Constitution means or how it's interpreted for the other ~300 million people it applies to.
That said, you're of course allowed to disagree with some/all interpretations of it.
That said it doesn't change the fact that other people are equally entitled to have their own pet interpretations of the Constitution that may align with your interpretation or run askew of it in any number of ways.

Presuming (and openly to boot) that someone doesn't "give a shit about the facts at hand" simply because they see/experience things differently than you do is the height of hubris. You're not arguing facts as the common definition of the word. You're arguing a subjective interpretation based on your own biases and notions (note I use those terms without negative connotation and simply to capture "ideals, environment, experience", etc). What you see as facts aiming in one direction, someone (everyone?) else will see slightly differently. Therefore, that means that your facts are not, in fact, facts at all since "Facts" require objectivity and verifiability.

As for the second paragraph..... ?
It is the "bailiwick" of the Supreme Court to review laws brought before them. If said review happens to change (redefine) the interpretation/application of said law then the court is working exactly as it was intended to work (WAD) regardless of whether any one individual (you) agrees or disagrees. It's their job to do so as the Founders intended and set forth. Wishing it were otherwise won't change that in the slightest.

Originally Posted by Alundil

Honestly, I don't know how to respond to this other than:

You don't get to decide what the Constitution means or how it's interpreted for the other ~300 million people it applies to.
That said, you're of course allowed to disagree with some/all interpretations of it.
That said it doesn't change the fact that other people are equally entitled to have their own pet interpretations of the Constitution that may align with your interpretation or run askew of it in any number of ways.

Presuming (and openly to boot) that someone doesn't "give a shit about the facts at hand" simply because they see/experience things differently than you do is the height of hubris. You're not arguing facts as the common definition of the word. You're arguing a subjective interpretation based on your own biases and notions (note I use those terms without negative connotation and simply to capture "ideals, environment, experience", etc). What you see as facts aiming in one direction, someone (everyone?) else will see slightly differently. Therefore, that means that your facts are not, in fact, facts at all since "Facts" require objectivity and verifiability.

Here's an exercise in objectivity and verifiability:

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states the following:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A roadblock where people may be detained and subject to search violates the Fourth amendment right of every single person who is forced to participate in it. The checkpoints constitute a detainment and subsequently a warrantless and suspicionless search without probable cause. This is obvious common sense objective observation. Just one example, there are more that can be given. If you point to a United States Supreme Court decision that defies that basic, common sense observation and then say that a citizen doesn't have a right to question that Supreme Court decision based on common sense and the facts at hand, well then you are exhibiting a hubris of your own, aren't you? Especially since eleven states have already ruled that the exact definition I gave for the unconstitutionality of the checkpoints is the defacto standard for those states.

Originally Posted by Alundil

As for the second paragraph..... ?
It is the "bailiwick" of the Supreme Court to review laws brought before them. If said review happens to change (redefine) the interpretation/application of said law then the court is working exactly as it was intended to work (WAD) regardless of whether any one individual (you) agrees or disagrees. It's their job to do so as the Founders intended and set forth. Wishing it were otherwise won't change that in the slightest.

So you believe it is the job of the Supreme Court of the United States to potentially redefine and change the application of laws which lawmakers have passed? No. You are just incorrect in your assertion, I'm sorry. The primary role of the US Supreme Court is interpreting the Constitution, and how it applies to laws that have been passed, whether the law is Constitutional or not. The Supreme Court is given authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. The founders absolutely did not set forth to have any court redefine/re-write laws or the application of laws. The intent (in terms of what we are discussing) was to allow the supreme court to either affirm or overturn legislation based on the constitutional analysis performed in judicial review. However today's court has gone far beyond that definition, and that is a bad thing.

I think the kind of thinking which you have espoused here illustrates one of the fundamental problems in this country. It goes back to what I have already said previously so I won't rehash it, except to say that it goes to a fundamental misunderstanding of the foundation for the design of our system of government and the role of the Constitution and the three branches (none of the three was ever supposed to be above the other or the Constitution). It makes me sad to realize that most people either don't care or are simply misinformed as to these issues. Perhaps it was wrong of me to assume that someone doesn't give a shit, but sitting and watching people get legalistic because it suits their purposes instead of applying common sense just makes me sad and fairly pessimistic about the direction we as a nation are traveling with regard to individual liberties and inalienable rights, and the average person's belief in and reliance on them. I used the term "give a shit" rather than provide the full statement of explanation.

0_0. Me when I see Al and Laz discuss something lol.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2.

Originally Posted by SourceSkills

0_0. Me when I see Al and Laz discuss something lol.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2.

I like AL! He's good people man! :-)

Originally Posted by SourceSkills

Not really. In my opinion they are definitely connected.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2.

I'm curious. How? Seriously I really want to understand.

Originally Posted by Laz

words

Laz - you're missing the distinct difference between objective and subjective.

As has been posted in this thread already the legality of those checkpoints, like it or lump it, has not been ruled un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court, therefore your claim that they are un-Constitutional....is moot (if/until such time as SCOTUS makes that ruling then you can come back here and lord it up for a bit in this thread). You can "circular reason" this all you want to. Feel free to do so. But a compelling argument it does not make.

"Common sense" is subjective too, by the way, and varies from region to region and certainly changes between generations. That you fail to see this is telling, and also obviates the need to discuss further points until/unless you can realize that you are not the island of reason and clear thinking nor hold a monopoly on cogent thought (or common sense for that matter).

Citizens (and anyone) can certainly argue about and disagree with rulings from any and all courts up to and including the Supreme Court.
However, the Supreme Court is the sole and final arbiter of what IS Constitutional or not. The End.
Which makes those disagreements pretty unimportant in the scheme of things (right wrong or indifferent).
You don't like it. Fine. Work to repeal the law(s) you find distasteful.
Otherwise it amounts to noise easily overlooked.

As to getting "legalistic".....in a thread discussing the Constitution (you know the primary legal document of the country) in a discussion with an attorney and others with some "legal" educations.....it probably beats leaning on one man's interpretation of "common sense."

Originally Posted by Source

words

?? huh ??

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Yes, really. We live in a country where the President can make proclamations that exceed their authority (see any of Executive orders as examples),

Article I of the Constitution authorizes. The 1st executive order was issued by George Washington. Which ones in particular do you take issue with?

announce selective enforcement of laws passed by congress (see obamacare).

Not really sure of your point here with respect to obamacare - the executive branch has always had the power to direct the activities of it's agencies. If I take your meaning correctly a better example would be the DOJ position on medical marijuana. Many of the laws passed and signed into law are not enforced - nothing new there, and again in place since the very beginning of the country.

In a country where our federal agencies regularly illegally search, seize, and/or store private data of innocent individuals with no probable cause,

They are all subject to review in the courts, based upon the standards laid out. Violations do occur but can and are addressed by the courts regularly.

and can take a citizen against his or her will and without due process (which that provision in the NDAA is again illegal and unconstitutional).

There are a number of issues with the NDAA which will likely be addressed by the Courts, both here and internationally. The interaction with international law is more problematic.

In a country where even the Supreme Court regularly misappropriates the intent of congress in their review of laws they are asked to rule on the constitutionality of (see the Obamacare decision and specifically Chief Justice Roberts' opinion as an example) in order to support or deny in bald face the political goals and influence of the other branches.

You can argue about activist courts all you want - they have been a fixture of our system since the country was founded. It's just that right now they are making decisions you personally disagree with. These court actions are regularly overturned by the legislature.

In a country where the 10th amendment is regularly ignored,

The 10th amendment is one of the most litigated and best defined provisions in Constitution - it is hardly 'ignored'. Again, the States rights vs Federalism argument has been going on since the beginning.

where the second amendment is seen as a "guideline"

By whom? The 2nd amendment is more than alive and well. And frankly, the expansive reading of 'rights' granted by the 2nd amendment by the likes of the NRA is much broader than any reading of Article III which authorizes courts, and broader than the reading of most other clauses.

and where the rest of the bill of rights is really only ever subjectively applied, again often based on the political aspirations of those involved.

See above.

There's obviously more, so much more to point out, but I'll stop in the interest of brevity.

The bottom line is that yes, this is unfortunately a post-constitutional republic. We can fix that. By we I mean we the people. But before we do, people like you are going to really need to give a shit about the facts at hand. If you won't, then things will keep getting worse. The United States government and most local governments as well have gone far beyond the boundaries set for them by the constitution. They are going to continue in that direction until we say no with our vote and collective voices. You point to "legal precedent" and decisions by the Supreme Court that are clearly troublesome in terms of their reach and scope in redefining laws they are called to review, and sit there and act like it's all good. Well I'm saying it's not all good.

You fail to understand how the country actually has always worked. A law is not in fact unconstitutional until a court says so - until that time it is in fact the Law and by definition is consistent with the Constitution. You may not like it, you may think they got it wrong, and that it violates your reading of the Constitution - but the very document you are relying on establishes these provisions and framework.

There are many rulings I do not like (see Citizens United) - that doesn't change the fact that it is the law. See I live and work in the real world where Laws matter, if I don't agree I know that there are legal avenues available to address what I perceive to be an issue. I also have my individual vote, and I use that too. I'm not nearly as cynical as you appear to be about the state of our country. I do not believe that Courts are out there advancing their own personal political agendas for financial gain or otherwise - the Legislative branch has the corner on that market.