The incoming generation

[Nym90]

I agree, courts overreaching definitely can create a backlash, even if the majority supports the decision. An angry and organized minority can be more powerful (and it can well be argued that they should be more powerful) than a contented and apathetic majority, no doubt about it.

My view is that pro-lifers often understand the risks of a backlash that you speak of, and they realize that overturning Roe v. Wade would tilt the balance of energy on the abortion debate to the pro-choice side. Politics matters just as much as principle in many of these cases; a lot of times, special interest groups want to keep an issue in the public view, rather than solve it. Of course, this happens on both sides; I'm definitely not accusing only the pro-life side of doing this. But it has to be acknowledged that this is a reality of politics.

I agree, though, that judical activism should only be used in extreme cases. The courts should act as a stopgap to block blatantly unconstitutional laws, but the burden of proof should rest with those seeking to strike down the will of the majority. The courts are a necessary check and balance against legislative and executive power run amok, but should not be legislating from the bench.

[Brandon H]

The Supreme Court has some liberal Republicans on it, which is why it is liberal and Republican controlled. There are 3 conservatives, 2 moderates, and 4 liberals.

The liberals will eventually abort themselves to extincting and eventually the younger generations will be more conservative. But it will take several generations for that to happen.

[Nym90]

The entire New Deal is unconstitutional, and should be struck down as such. I do believe we will, within the next generation, get an orginalist majority on the Supreme Court and eradicate the entire thing. Of course, the liberal states will then implement these things on their own, but that's beside the point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All of those are unconstitutional at the federal level. And all of them are terrible.

Roe v. Wade was not an extremist ruling, it was just made up. It fit majority opinion, but still had absolutely no constitutional basis whatsoever of any kind at all, and so to support it really enrages me and shows complete disrespect for our most important founding document.

Well, again, it's a philosophical disagreement. I agree that the Constitution should be respected, but I support a loose interpretation of it, and I support it being a living document that adjusts to the times. I think that a very strict literal interpretation of the Constitution is quite often in the best interests of our country, but the purpose of the Constitution is to create "a more perfect union". When an absolute literal interpretation of the Constitution does not create a more perfect union, then insisting on a literal translation defeats the original purpose of the document's entire existence. It's not seeing the forest for the trees.

Rules have a purpose, and it isn't to make technocrats and bureaucrats happy; it's to serve the greater good.

So while you could say that it was silly to list everything the federal government could do in the Constitution, if it indeed was permitted to do more than that, I would argue that it was more likely a clarification of government's powers regarding pertinent issues of the day; if the government was not meant to have the power to provide for the common defense and welfare, and provide for a more perfect union, then why even bother to mention these purposes at all? Why not just list what it can do, and not say what the purpose of these rights is? That argument can be used in both directions.

Just something to think about.

Hah! Your idiotic post is exactly what the Anti-Federalists feared. Indeed, the framers of the Constitution dismissed it as ridiculous:

http://speaker.house.gov/library/texts/federalist/default.asp

It is apparent that you know absolutely nothing about the history of the Constitution, and frankly, have no business talking about it.

Well, that's my view on it. It may or may not disagree with what the original framers intended, and I don't necessarily believe that their intentions can be ascertained with 100% certainty, but I don't believe in a literal translation in any event.

Interpreting a written document in a different way than the author did does not make the alternate view foolish or ridiculous. If the author wanted to remove all ambiguity, and only wanted people to view it in a rigid manner, they should have made it more clear, so as to remove all doubt from reasonable minds. They should have gone ahead and said "The federal government can do this and only this, nothing more" in the Constitution itself. The fact that the large majority of people choose not to interpret the Constitution in an extremely literal way does not prove in and of itself that this is not a foolish viewpoint, but it certainly is a strong bit of evidence.

My points still stand about the reason why the document was written in the first place, and they don't just apply to the Constitiution, they apply to all laws.

What is the purpose of the law, if not to serve the best interests of the people? That, to me, is the true issue at stake here. That is the question that moves this outside of the realm of an academic exercise and turns it into a real problem that truly affects people in a profound way everyday.

[A18]

Who makes that determination? It can only be made by personal, political opinion.

And so there is a Constitution, and there is an amendment process.

Their intentions are 100% certain on this matter. I mean, geez... you should seriously have to read the Federalist Papers before being eligible to vote.

[Nym90]

Who makes that determination? It can only be made by personal, political opinion.

And so there is a Constitution, and there is an amendment process.

Their intentions are 100% certain on this matter. I mean, geez... you should seriously have to read the Federalist Papers before being eligible to vote.

So you agree with Jefferson on this manner, and I side with Hamilton. I guess that's what it boils down to, eh?

[dazzleman]

I agree, courts overreaching definitely can create a backlash, even if the majority supports the decision. An angry and organized minority can be more powerful (and it can well be argued that they should be more powerful) than a contented and apathetic majority, no doubt about it.

My view is that pro-lifers often understand the risks of a backlash that you speak of, and they realize that overturning Roe v. Wade would tilt the balance of energy on the abortion debate to the pro-choice side. Politics matters just as much as principle in many of these cases; a lot of times, special interest groups want to keep an issue in the public view, rather than solve it. Of course, this happens on both sides; I'm definitely not accusing only the pro-life side of doing this. But it has to be acknowledged that this is a reality of politics.

I agree, though, that judical activism should only be used in extreme cases. The courts should act as a stopgap to block blatantly unconstitutional laws, but the burden of proof should rest with those seeking to strike down the will of the majority. The courts are a necessary check and balance against legislative and executive power run amok, but should not be legislating from the bench.

With your last paragraph, Eric, you sound like a Republican.

I am often troubled by the fact that an angry, organized and energized minority can have more power than a happy and apathetic majority.  There are some cases where this can be good, such as when the majority favors blatant racial discrimination, or something like that.  But I don't think it can be ASSUMED that this is a good thing, as many "progressives" do.  Often, a movement that starts out being something good turns bad, and it often takes a long time for the majority to recognize and react to it.

[Nym90]

I agree, courts overreaching definitely can create a backlash, even if the majority supports the decision. An angry and organized minority can be more powerful (and it can well be argued that they should be more powerful) than a contented and apathetic majority, no doubt about it.

My view is that pro-lifers often understand the risks of a backlash that you speak of, and they realize that overturning Roe v. Wade would tilt the balance of energy on the abortion debate to the pro-choice side. Politics matters just as much as principle in many of these cases; a lot of times, special interest groups want to keep an issue in the public view, rather than solve it. Of course, this happens on both sides; I'm definitely not accusing only the pro-life side of doing this. But it has to be acknowledged that this is a reality of politics.

I agree, though, that judical activism should only be used in extreme cases. The courts should act as a stopgap to block blatantly unconstitutional laws, but the burden of proof should rest with those seeking to strike down the will of the majority. The courts are a necessary check and balance against legislative and executive power run amok, but should not be legislating from the bench.

With your last paragraph, Eric, you sound like a Republican.

I am often troubled by the fact that an angry, organized and energized minority can have more power than a happy and apathetic majority.  There are some cases where this can be good, such as when the majority favors blatant racial discrimination, or something like that.  But I don't think it can be ASSUMED that this is a good thing, as many "progressives" do. Often, a movement that starts out being something good turns bad, and it often takes a long time for the majority to recognize and react to it.

Yes, the power of the Dark Side is difficult to resist.

Otherwise, you are pretty spot on again. There should be a balance, though unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your view) we can't control the basis on which people vote. If people care about one issue only, and insist on voting on that issue alone, well, that's their perogative in a democracy. That's what I was mostly getting at with an angry, organized minority having great power, in that if they vote on one issue alone, they can have enormous power out of proportion to their numbers. Also, those who have money to contribute to candidates, and care passionately about an issue, obviously have a disproportionate impact. I would like to see greater public funding of campaigns to help minimize this problem, and more free airtime for candidates, but that's probably a debate for another thread.

[A18]

Who makes that determination? It can only be made by personal, political opinion.

And so there is a Constitution, and there is an amendment process.

Their intentions are 100% certain on this matter. I mean, geez... you should seriously have to read the Federalist Papers before being eligible to vote.

So you agree with Jefferson on this manner, and I side with Hamilton. I guess that's what it boils down to, eh?

Hamilton wrote many of the Federalist Papers. He did not agree with what you're saying.

Hamilton argued that it was constitutional to, for example, create a national bank, if it was being used as a means of realizing the enumerated power to coin money.

[dazzleman]

Yes, the power of the Dark Side is difficult to resist.

Otherwise, you are pretty spot on again. There should be a balance, though unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your view) we can't control the basis on which people vote. If people care about one issue only, and insist on voting on that issue alone, well, that's their perogative in a democracy. That's what I was mostly getting at with an angry, organized minority having great power, in that if they vote on one issue alone, they can have enormous power out of proportion to their numbers. Also, those who have money to contribute to candidates, and care passionately about an issue, obviously have a disproportionate impact. I would like to see greater public funding of campaigns to help minimize this problem, and more free airtime for candidates, but that's probably a debate for another thread.

Sadly, the reality is that society will never find the right balance.  It is part of the human condition.

No matter how well we do in building a fair society (and results so far are mixed), somebody will be unhappy, and there will always be an unhappy minority trying to build a majority around policies that they favor, or if they despair of building a majority, getting the courts to declare their ideas constitutional rights, and therefore sacrosanct.

I have a theory about the life cycle of ideas and solutions.  I think that ideas and policies go through a natural life cycle, and through the natural progression of things, something that starts out as being the answer to a problem later becomes part of the problem, or the problem itself.

Certainly, this happened with welfare.  Welfare was started to address a problem, and later became the problem, or at least part of it.  Unions were started to address a problem, and are now a contributor to problems in certain areas.  The civil rights movement, in my opinion, has now degenerated to the point where it is contributing to the problems of blacks and contributing to racial division, rather than ameliorating them, as the original purpose was to do.  The women's movement has degenerated to the point where it is close to being an anti-male hate group.

Ideas, and the policies they spawn, need to be reviewed and updated on a regular basis to prevent these things from happening.  What was once a radical idea becomes mainstream, sometimes too mainstream, and another radical idea must rise up to address the problems created by the older idea, and the policies it spawned.  That is where "organized and energized minorities" come in.