Why are you liberal democrats against US constitution?

I would ask the same of any republicans that think the general welfare clause gives the government specific legislative powers for anything deemed to be for the public good.

Since "general welfare" is so vague, it could mean anything. I could say that it is in the best interests of the country to enact primae noctus, and who is to say it isn't covered in the general welfare clause?

 

Those who learn the wrong lesson are simply doomed.

 

Others interpret the document differently, thus are not worthy of honest disagreement but, are rather discounted as against the Constitution. I call foul.

 

I think the idea of a living constitution is a good thing. It allows for the end of slavery, the womens vote, the Indigenous Peoples vote etc.. The founders were brilliant men they were not Gods.

 

Others can say that Green Eggs and Ham is a blatant attempt to indoctrinate the youth into the patriarchy, and they would be similarly discounted.

Yes, if you think the general welfare clause gives the federal government the power to enact legislation, then you are not worthy of debate.

 

Oh but yes they are.

 

It intended to reserve the power of the vote to property owners only. Do you want to go back to that?

 

Whose policies led to the Great Depression. Oh, that went well...

 

The 14th was properly ratified when 3/4 of the states approved the amendment as written. Second, conservatives are the ones who want special groups, namely married and heterosexual, have special rights than other persons, not to mention certain races over others, certain ethnicities and nationalities over others, etc.

Judicial review is in the Constitution. It is in article VI to be more specific. However, judicial review has to be done in accordance with the Constitional, which means that it is brought to the court by petition. And Marbury v Madison set the Constitutional parameters of judicial review. No Supreme Court justice, not even Thomas nor Scalia, are going to nullify judicial review.

NBC is in two places and defined somewhat under the Federalist papers. The first place where NBC is mentioned is the preamble of the Constitution, but Supreme Court has ruled consistently that the preamble is NOT Constitutional law. However, in Article 1, Section 8, the NBC is mentioned but not clearly defined. That is where the Supreme Court case of United States v Butler has defined what NBC means. And that is the beauty of the Supreme Court. Everything else is pretty much moot.

 

And definitely want to get around His call to Charity.

 

The end of slavery came about because of the 13th amendment. Suffrage was abolished with the 19th amendment. Amending the constitution is not what people mean when they refer to the constitution as a "living document". What that means is that the original intent is not relevant, but rather the meaning is dynamic, and changes with the times.

 

Which would promptly challenged in the Courts and thrown out before it was enacted. This is an excellent picture of the duty of SCOTUS>

 

Then you are ignoring parts of Article III and Article VI. Judicial Review is in the Constitution. In article III, it states, "Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.. When the Supreme Court does rule on a decision, then Article VI come into play. It states " This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The Authority of the United States is interpreted as the three branches of the United States, all equal, but separate. It is there, but it was solicited by Marbury v Madison.

BTW, you may want to look at the Judicial Act of 1789 which Congress, and the President, made into law established the lower federal court system for djudical review. It has been there from the beginning.

Then you have the Federalist Paper 80 which says "]he judges under this constitution will control the legislature, for the supreme court are authorised in the last resort, to determine what is the extent of the powers of the Congress. They are to give the constitution an explanation, and there is no power above them to set aside their judgment. . . . The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void.


No matter how you look at it, judicial review was intended by the Founding Fathers to be used and applied as well as the Constitution itself.

 

The original intent of the Founding Fathers later required Amendments, this proves they were not Gods - Therefore in order to keep the Constitution healthy it must remain flexible and alive, Not a dead letter to be interpreted like Scripture.

 

But on what grounds? That the general welfare clause grants the federal government legislative powers, but that there are limits?

Where in the constitution are those limits mentioned?

 

We have been over this quote before and the quote has been butchered beyond recognition of what presumably was a letter written by Franklin to the Pennsylvania governor in 1755. The intent of the letter is not a balance between liberty and security, but was intended of effective government. The history is the dispute between the Penn Family and the legislative Assembly. The Legislative assembly was trying to impose, through the power of the purse, a tax on Penn Lands in order to pay for the defense of the frontier. The Penn Family believed that the tax was unfair to them since they have already volunteered to pay for the defense out of their own funds. Franklin was thus complaining of the choice facing the legislature between being able to make funds available for frontier defense and maintaining its right of self-governance--and he was criticizing the governor for suggesting it should be willing to give up the latter to ensure the former.

 

They gave us Article V for that, and that accounts for the examples you gave. They did not intend for us to re-interpret the constitution willy-nilly, and we should not.

 

No, under the Civil Rights act.http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm

- - - Updated - - -

SCOTUS is not even close to "willy-nilly".

 

One more time that idea was rejected. If thats so there is no limit on the power of the government.

 

The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Therefore, it is legally impossible for something that is not in the constitution itself to limit the authority of the constitution.

 

What liberties have liberals given us? Every law removes a liberty. Even the ones we like.

 

It says judicial power no mention of even the words judicial review. I thought everyone knew its not there

Things not in the Constitution

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

It covered arms and speech.

Reagan had a democratic congress who held him hostage.

 

Obama is a centrist Democrat. Get over yourselves.

Being black does not automatically classify a politician as a "radical leftist"

Newsflash...the ACA? If he was a "radical leftist" he would have been pushing Medicare for all.

The ACA was originally proposed by none other than Newt Gingrich in the 90s and was instituted by Romney in Mass when he was Gov.

Real socialists there huh?

 

We still know what don we now our gay apparel means

- - - Updated - - -

Your the ones who locked up all the Japanese in the US

 

WTF?

Too much coffee? That makes no sense whatsoever.