Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-10-2013, 05:35   #221
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 36,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Which parts do you feel are in unclear?
All of the parts. That is the nature of constitutions and laws. Cases are written in detail to account for things that have already happened. Laws are written generally, to try to account for future possibilities. The higher the levle, the more general it is - the constitution being the highest level of all and being written appropriately for that level. In fact, nobody has managed to write one on par since, for the very reasons argued about here - because they try and make it more clear and specific, which leads to unforseen future problems. We only have forseeable future whiners who don't get what they want.
__________________
Quote:
This is the internet - you will never learn to shoot here.
- Me, 2014.
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 06:42   #222
syntaxerrorsix
CLM Number 301
Anti-Federalist
 
syntaxerrorsix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lakeland, FL.
Posts: 9,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
Because at least the supreme court has to decide what the constitution means and, no matter what your constitution says, somebody has to do that.

The majority? They elected Obama and can barely sign thei names on thei welfare checks. I'd rather go with the courts having too much power than "the people." We talk a lot about "the people" as if they are some wise and noble group. Maybe we should stop and think about that.
And that is the power that doesn't exist. That leads to legislation from the bench and is the root of all of our problems in regards to the COTUS.

Does the Executive Office get to interpret it's powers? How about the Legislative Branch?

No.

The power doesn't exist. It destroys our checks and balances. It allows for Presidents to sway power towards his political ideology by selecting Justices that can now do what we so dread.

If States want the SCOTUS to have that power we have an amendment process.

Same with federal laws that affect the States. Not commerce or interstate travel but directly affect the states and it's people because once again, they are not granted any such powers by the COTUS. FBI, FDA, DoA? Not provided for. Sorry, the powers of the Federal government are quite clearly laid out and none account for such agencies.
__________________
Sappers Forward
841st Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 81ARCOM, 84th Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 2ACR, 40th Eng (Mech) 1AD, 588th Eng (Mech) 4ID

syntaxerrorsix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 06:48   #223
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 36,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by syntaxerrorsix View Post
And that is the power that doesn't exist. That leads to legislation from the bench and is the root of all of our problems in regards to the COTUS.

Does the Executive Office get to interpret it's powers? How about the Legislative Branch?

No.

The power doesn't exist. It destroys our checks and balances. It allows for Presidents to sway power towards his political ideology by selecting Justices that can now do what we so dread.

If States want the SCOTUS to have that power we have an amendment process.

Same with federal laws that affect the States. Not commerce or interstate travel but directly affect the states and it's people because once again, they are not granted any such powers by the COTUS. FBI, FDA, DoA? Not provided for. Sorry, the powers of the Federal government are quite clearly laid out and none account for such agencies.
Well,

A. you are wrong - the constitution is federal law and the interpretation of federal law is done by the judiciary.

B. If not the courts, who do you suggest should do it instead?

C. If you think the constitution clearly lays out the powers of the government, so it needs no interpretation, then you don't know enough about it to even begin this discussion. The state and federal law affecting my state, for example, would fill a library (and does fill several libraries) yet even that doesn't lay it out so clearly that courts aren't required to answer new questions about what it means, every single day.
__________________
Quote:
This is the internet - you will never learn to shoot here.
- Me, 2014.

Last edited by Bren; 01-10-2013 at 06:50..
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 06:49   #224
syntaxerrorsix
CLM Number 301
Anti-Federalist
 
syntaxerrorsix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lakeland, FL.
Posts: 9,861
By our inaction we have allowed the federal government to reach so far past it's constitutional authority that we have reached the point of no return. It's powers are listed and limited. That list is widely available and has been posted in this thread. If that power isn't there guess what folks, it doesn't exist. Your education has let you down if the wording of the 10A is beyond your reading comprehension.
__________________
Sappers Forward
841st Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 81ARCOM, 84th Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 2ACR, 40th Eng (Mech) 1AD, 588th Eng (Mech) 4ID

syntaxerrorsix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 06:53   #225
syntaxerrorsix
CLM Number 301
Anti-Federalist
 
syntaxerrorsix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lakeland, FL.
Posts: 9,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
Well,

A. you are wrong - the constitution is federal law and the interpretation of federal law is done by the judiciary.

B. If not the courts, who do you suggest should do it instead?

C. If you think the constitution clearly lays out the powers of the government, so it needs no interpretation, then you don't know enough about it to even begin this discussion.
A. No I'm not. The SCOTUS has a limited amount of cases to hear. Federal drug laws aren't under it's purview because federal drug laws aren't suppose to exist.

B. Once again, the cases they should be hearing won't be in regards to the BOR. Those laws were left tot he States because the BOR is a restriction on the federal government. NO branches of the federal courts get to legislate those.

C. The powers given to the federal government are quite clear nothing else applies. Would you like me to post that list again?
__________________
Sappers Forward
841st Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 81ARCOM, 84th Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 2ACR, 40th Eng (Mech) 1AD, 588th Eng (Mech) 4ID

syntaxerrorsix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 06:58   #226
syntaxerrorsix
CLM Number 301
Anti-Federalist
 
syntaxerrorsix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lakeland, FL.
Posts: 9,861
Judicial review doesn't exit. We are allowing the SCOTUS to rule from the bench by our inaction.
__________________
Sappers Forward
841st Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 81ARCOM, 84th Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 2ACR, 40th Eng (Mech) 1AD, 588th Eng (Mech) 4ID

syntaxerrorsix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 07:41   #227
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 42,736


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
All of the parts. That is the nature of constitutions and laws. Cases are written in detail to account for things that have already happened. Laws are written generally, to try to account for future possibilities. The higher the levle, the more general it is - the constitution being the highest level of all and being written appropriately for that level. In fact, nobody has managed to write one on par since, for the very reasons argued about here - because they try and make it more clear and specific, which leads to unforseen future problems. We only have forseeable future whiners who don't get what they want.
While I generally respect your opinion even when I disagree with it, this is patently wrong. The Bill of Rights is incredibly clear and specific. It was written in the language of the day, but not written in an unclear manner or vaguely.

Where is this vagueness?

Quote:
Congress shall make no law
Quote:
shall not be infringed
Quote:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law
Quote:
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.
Quote:
No person shall
Quote:
In all criminal prosecutions
Quote:
shall exceed twenty dollars
Quote:
Excessive bail shall not be required
Quote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Please point out where the Bill of Rights is vague.

Lets look at the main body of the COTUS:

Quote:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the
United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Vague?

Quote:
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of
twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who
shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be
chosen.
Vague?

Quote:
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but
shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
Vague?

You get my point.

The COTUS is a legal document that is very specific. Men with an agenda have muddied the water.
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 08:18   #228
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by syntaxerrorsix View Post
And that is the power that doesn't exist. That leads to legislation from the bench and is the root of all of our problems in regards to the COTUS.

Does the Executive Office get to interpret it's powers? How about the Legislative Branch?

No.

The power doesn't exist. It destroys our checks and balances. It allows for Presidents to sway power towards his political ideology by selecting Justices that can now do what we so dread.

If States want the SCOTUS to have that power we have an amendment process.

Same with federal laws that affect the States. Not commerce or interstate travel but directly affect the states and it's people because once again, they are not granted any such powers by the COTUS. FBI, FDA, DoA? Not provided for. Sorry, the powers of the Federal government are quite clearly laid out and none account for such agencies.
So, to recap, you don't think the Judicial branch should be interpreting the Constitution or laws made under authority ostensibly granted by it.

You think we should vote on it as a referendum? Every law? Or what, if not that? I'm unclear here as to exactly what it is that you are proposing.

Or if you are just saying, "If I say a law is unconstitutional, then that is the final word, and I don't have to obey it", then just admit that.
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.

Last edited by series1811; 01-10-2013 at 08:18..
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 09:06   #229
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 42,736


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharky7 View Post
In regards to some areas of drug conspiracy and smuggling.....but this could not be further from the truth on the statement you make.
The Constitution is not vague about the fed's role in drug smuggling either. Article I Section 8

Quote:
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
Very clear and specific. Not vague at all.

Quote:
Heroin is as easy to get in Chicago as a pack of gum from a store. The junkie going through withdrawal that is breaking into your house looking for items to pawn is doing so for money....not because his heroin is illegal by the government.
Any ideas as to why the junkie needs so much money to buy his heroin? Are poppies rare? How much was a fifth of whisky during prohibition, adjusted for inflation. Was there crime associated with acquiring it?

Why are cuban cigars so expensive? Cost of production in cuba where they drive 1950's cars?

Easy as a pack of gum? The WOD is working wonderfully.
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 09:28   #230
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
The Constitution is not vague about the fed's role in drug smuggling either. Article I Section 8



Very clear and specific. Not vague at all.



Any ideas as to why the junkie needs so much money to buy his heroin? Are poppies rare? How much was a fifth of whisky during prohibition, adjusted for inflation. Was there crime associated with acquiring it?

Why are cuban cigars so expensive? Cost of production in cuba where they drive 1950's cars?

Easy as a pack of gum? The WOD is working wonderfully.
The problem with the War on Drugs is the same as the problem with the War on Terror. We are trying to make both crimes when both should be looked at as threats to national security and dealt with accordingly.
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 09:37   #231
RC-RAMIE
Senior Member
 
RC-RAMIE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
The problem with the War on Drugs is the same as the problem with the War on Terror. We are trying to make both crimes when both should be looked at as threats to national security and dealt with accordingly.
So you want to ramp up the Federal Government involvement in the WOD?
RC-RAMIE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 09:38   #232
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC-RAMIE View Post
So you want to ramp up the Federal Government involvement in the WOD?
No, just the opposite.
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 09:41   #233
RC-RAMIE
Senior Member
 
RC-RAMIE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
The problem with the War on Drugs is the same as the problem with the War on Terror. We are trying to make both crimes when both should be looked at as threats to national security and dealt with accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
No, just the opposite.
Clear it up for me if you can, what would change that would make government smaller by switching it from a crime to a "threat to national security"?
RC-RAMIE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 09:42   #234
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC-RAMIE View Post
Clear it up for me if you can, what would change that would make government smaller by switching it from a crime to a "threat to national security"?
Treat it as espionage instead of a crime. Carlos Lehder was a perfect example.

Lehder, an early member of the Medillin Cartel, was a dedicated communist and advocated the overthrow of the U.S. government. His primary motivation in shipping massive amounts of cocaine to the U.S., by his own admission, was that it would be more effective than an atomic bomb in destroying America.

Why did we look at that as a crime and devote millions of dollars in trying to prove it as a crime? There were much cheaper ways of dealing with Lehder available to us.

So, why did we do it and why do we continue to do it?
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.

Last edited by series1811; 01-10-2013 at 10:14..
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 10:30   #235
syntaxerrorsix
CLM Number 301
Anti-Federalist
 
syntaxerrorsix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lakeland, FL.
Posts: 9,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
So, to recap, you don't think the Judicial branch should be interpreting the Constitution or laws made under authority ostensibly granted by it.

You think we should vote on it as a referendum? Every law? Or what, if not that? I'm unclear here as to exactly what it is that you are proposing.

Or if you are just saying, "If I say a law is unconstitutional, then that is the final word, and I don't have to obey it", then just admit that.

I think that if we are to grant a power to a branch of the Federal government the States should ratify it. Currently Judicial Review as we have accepted it is not a power of the Judicial Branch of government. Those laws and interpretations belonged to the States.

I don't think that ANY government should have the power to interpret it's own limits and power.

To your second point, yes, an unconstitutional law or order is invalid and I believe it's our DUTY to right it.
__________________
Sappers Forward
841st Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 81ARCOM, 84th Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 2ACR, 40th Eng (Mech) 1AD, 588th Eng (Mech) 4ID


Last edited by syntaxerrorsix; 01-10-2013 at 10:31..
syntaxerrorsix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 10:33   #236
syntaxerrorsix
CLM Number 301
Anti-Federalist
 
syntaxerrorsix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lakeland, FL.
Posts: 9,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
Treat it as espionage instead of a crime. Carlos Lehder was a perfect example.

Lehder, an early member of the Medillin Cartel, was a dedicated communist and advocated the overthrow of the U.S. government. His primary motivation in shipping massive amounts of cocaine to the U.S., by his own admission, was that it would be more effective than an atomic bomb in destroying America.

Why did we look at that as a crime and devote millions of dollars in trying to prove it as a crime? There were much cheaper ways of dealing with Lehder available to us.

So, why did we do it and why do we continue to do it?

Take his power away. Make it legal.
__________________
Sappers Forward
841st Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 81ARCOM, 84th Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 2ACR, 40th Eng (Mech) 1AD, 588th Eng (Mech) 4ID

syntaxerrorsix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 10:57   #237
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 42,736


While the libertarian in me believes people should be free to destroy themselves, I agree with Series1811 here.

The U.S. Government has the full Constitutional authority to regulate the import of products into the country. I don't think an influx of foreign cocaine is good for our society and it is within the purview of the feds to control the importation. If that determination is made it should be done with a degree of resolution that will make it successful, or not done at all. The U.S. government is powerful enough to stop it if desired.

Likewise, the federal government should protect U.S. methamphetamine manufacturers from unfair trade practices of the Mexican cartels.
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh

Last edited by certifiedfunds; 01-10-2013 at 10:58..
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 11:06   #238
syntaxerrorsix
CLM Number 301
Anti-Federalist
 
syntaxerrorsix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lakeland, FL.
Posts: 9,861
In case anyone was interested this isn't a new debate. It's simply contrary to what a lot you were taught and what you see today. For those that feel it's the Judicial systems job to review law I say put it to the amendment process. If not it should be left to the State courts to decide as most Federal laws and agencies are unconstitutional to begin with and the SCOTUS isn't lawfully allowed to interpret change or alter the BOR.

Lew Rockwell Judicial Review v Constitutional Government

Mises.Org Taking the Constitution Away From the Courts

The Heritage Foundation The Transformation of Judicial Review in America
__________________
Sappers Forward
841st Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 81ARCOM, 84th Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 2ACR, 40th Eng (Mech) 1AD, 588th Eng (Mech) 4ID

syntaxerrorsix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 11:09   #239
syntaxerrorsix
CLM Number 301
Anti-Federalist
 
syntaxerrorsix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lakeland, FL.
Posts: 9,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
While the libertarian in me believes people should be free to destroy themselves, I agree with Series1811 here.

The U.S. Government has the full Constitutional authority to regulate the import of products into the country. I don't think an influx of foreign cocaine is good for our society and it is within the purview of the feds to control the importation. If that determination is made it should be done with a degree of resolution that will make it successful, or not done at all. The U.S. government is powerful enough to stop it if desired.

Likewise, the federal government should protect U.S. methamphetamine manufacturers from unfair trade practices of the Mexican cartels.
I agree with his international point as well. After all that sort of trade and commerce is the purview of the Federal Government However I've not seen a lot of success in regards to the WoD. We already legitimately fight that war and we are losing. At what point do we change tactics I don't know.
__________________
Sappers Forward
841st Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 81ARCOM, 84th Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 2ACR, 40th Eng (Mech) 1AD, 588th Eng (Mech) 4ID

syntaxerrorsix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 11:46   #240
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by syntaxerrorsix View Post
I think that if we are to grant a power to a branch of the Federal government the States should ratify it. Currently Judicial Review as we have accepted it is not a power of the Judicial Branch of government. Those laws and interpretations belonged to the States.

I don't think that ANY government should have the power to interpret it's own limits and power.

To your second point, yes, an unconstitutional law or order is invalid and I believe it's our DUTY to right it.
So, if as a law enforcement officer, I think that the law against intercepting wireless cell phone transmissions (Title III), which are passing right through my body, and which I feel the Constitution puts these conversations in my lawful possession, is unconstiutional, it is okay for me to start listening in on these conversations already in my possession?

Or, is this law constitutional because you feel it is, regardless of what I feel?
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:02.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 893
236 Members
657 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31