Investors now see Australia as a better place to invest than the USA or Germany.

[Enoch]

It's tyrannical whenever it purposely misnterprets the laws to suit its political agenda instead of honestly trying to get to the meaning, no matter on which side it comes out as a result.

So now you're reading the minds of judges? How is it possible to figure out whether a particular outcome is "purposely misinterpreting" as opposed to merely mistakenly misinterpreting, or applying an interpretation that, although it may not agree with the one the reader favors, is nonetheless a reasonable alternative, given available information?

 

I was reading "tyrannical" as meaning associated with an authoritarian form of government. One could argue that unelected judges striking down the actions of a representative legislature as a tyrannical action (or at least an oligarchic one).

There's no ambiguity in the example you cite, taxation is allowed only for general welfare, not for someone's particular welfare, but whatever the congress does is still limited to the enumerated powers. This is a very blatant example of purposeful misinterpretation of the original meaning.

I'm not sure I follow you. Of course Congress is limited to the enumerated powers. But those powers are broadly stated-- Congress is explicitly granted the power to raise an Army and a Navy, but they don't need a constitutional amendment in order to fund the Air Force. And two of those enumerated powers include regulating commerce and spending public money for the general welfare of the nation. The details of what is and isn't included within the scope of those terms are far from clear.

[Walsingham]

WoD, are you not at all tempted to tone down the rhetoric a wee bit? I can almost hear your hyperbole spanging off Enoch like softnosed bullets off a bulletproof bat.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's tyrannical whenever it purposely misnterprets the laws to suit its political agenda instead of honestly trying to get to the meaning, no matter on which side it comes out as a result.

So now you're reading the minds of judges? How is it possible to figure out whether a particular outcome is "purposely misinterpreting" as opposed to merely mistakenly misinterpreting, or applying an interpretation that, although it may not agree with the one the reader favors, is nonetheless a reasonable alternative, given available information?

You can study history and context, and you can read the tortured logic and the sophistry of the decisions to come to the conclusion.

I was reading "tyrannical" as meaning associated with an authoritarian form of government. One could argue that unelected judges striking down the actions of a representative legislature as a tyrannical action (or at least an oligarchic one).

When judges choose to disregard democratically inacted law (which includes the Constitution, the supreme law of the land) they're being tyrants.

There's no ambiguity in the example you cite, taxation is allowed only for general welfare, not for someone's particular welfare, but whatever the congress does is still limited to the enumerated powers. This is a very blatant example of purposeful misinterpretation of the original meaning.

I'm not sure I follow you. Of course Congress is limited to the enumerated powers. But those powers are broadly stated-- Congress is explicitly granted the power to raise an Army and a Navy, but they don't need a constitutional amendment in order to fund the Air Force. And two of those enumerated powers include regulating commerce and spending public money for the general welfare of the nation. The details of what is and isn't included within the scope of those terms are far from clear.

The air force is implied, since obviously they meant to authorize armed forces, but there was no concept of an air force at that time, there's nothing fundamentally different about the air force. Even so I wish they would've passed an amendment, simply because not doing so becomes an excuse to make a complete mockery of the concept of the Constitution, as you just demonstrated. There is no authority to spend public money for general welfare, there's only authority to tax for the general welfare (meaning not their own, or their friends', or a particular state). They can only spend money on things explicitly stated in the Constitution, as 10th amendment amply reaffirms. The Commerce clause was meant to only regulate commerce, like states trying to impose tariffs on each other, or trying to somehow prevent importation of goods from other states. To say they can legislate on anything that has anything whatsoever to do with commerce makes the concept of enumerated powers completely meaningless, and government can suddenly do whatever it wants, when we know from history the founders meant to severely restrict the power of the federal government, as Madison reaffirms in his veto. It's like WTO claiming they get to run the US because whatever US does always impacts world trade in some way.

 

Edit:

WoD, are you not at all tempted to tone down the rhetoric a wee bit? I can almost hear your hyperbole spanging off Enoch like softnosed bullets off a bulletproof bat.

What hyperbole? Do you actually have a point to make?

Edited August 30, 2011 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

but there was no concept of an air force at that time, there's nothing fundamentally different about the air force

I think ultimately this is the biggest reason that not everything can be limited by constitution

[Walsingham]

"tyrannical"?

[Guard Dog]

Ok, I do not want to get drawn in to the debate here, especially since WoD does not need my help. But just to point out the Air Force began as part of the Army. It was the Army Air Corps as early as the 1920's if memory serves, and was not seperated until after Korea (again going off memory here). So it's not like the US decided to create a whole new service. But even if it did there is no Constitutional bar to them doing it as I understand it. Who knows, we might have a "Space Force" someday.

 

Anyway, a word of warning to WoD, the US Constitution does not lend itself to literal interpretation.

 

@Enoch & Calax, the 111th Congress would have us believe the Commerce Clause and the Necassary and Proper clause give the Congress unlimited authority to do whatever the hell it pleases to us. Thankfully the 11th Circuit CoA called them down on it earlier this month. Our republic is safest when legislature excesses are checked by a judiciary who render decisions based on an originalist viewpoint (would that we had one who did so consistently). So no, I do not think it is either tyrannical or oligarchical (is that a word?) when laws granting powers beyond the scope of constitutional limitations are struck down. Hopefully the SCOTUS follows suit next year.

 

The only way to get around the judiciary is to amend the constitution. Correct me if I'm wrong here Enoch but a properly passed Constituional amendent IS the de facto law of the land and not subject to judicial review.

 

@Calax, they day the electoral college goes away is the day the country breaks. New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston and Dallas would decide every election. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

[Nepenthe]

Ok, I do not want to get drawn in to the debate here, especially since WoD does not need my help.

I'd say he desperately needs help, sheer conviction alone is not always enough to convince other people (though it happens). Since, apart from said conviction, I'm not seeing the claimed connections between the dots.

 

Also, to add the requisite entropy expected of my posts, SCOTUS always makes me think of scrotums. The pictures don't help. But is that guy Scalia quotable or what!

[Wrath of Dagon]

Ok, I do not want to get drawn in to the debate here, especially since WoD does not need my help.

I'd say he desperately needs help, sheer conviction alone is not always enough to convince other people (though it happens). Since, apart from said conviction, I'm not seeing the claimed connections between the dots.

 

Also, to add the requisite entropy expected of my posts, SCOTUS always makes me think of scrotums. The pictures don't help. But is that guy Scalia quotable or what!

May be living in your lefty paradise, you just don't have any concept of the US constitutional system.

[Calax]

@Calax, they day the electoral college goes away is the day the country breaks. New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston and Dallas would decide every election. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

I never said it would. The smaller states (population wise) would never allow it because it would cut into their possible ability to effect the outcomes of elections (which hasn't mattered in any way shape or form). But still it's a completely obsolete system that entirely negates the popular vote in what is supposed to be a popularity contest.

[Nepenthe]

Ok, I do not want to get drawn in to the debate here, especially since WoD does not need my help.

I'd say he desperately needs help, sheer conviction alone is not always enough to convince other people (though it happens). Since, apart from said conviction, I'm not seeing the claimed connections between the dots.

 

Also, to add the requisite entropy expected of my posts, SCOTUS always makes me think of scrotums. The pictures don't help. But is that guy Scalia quotable or what!

May be living in your lefty paradise, you just don't have any concept of the US constitutional system.

Heh, at least I've studied constitutional law, and the problems we face with the EU basic treaties are very similar, legally.

 

"lefty paradise", heh x2.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Nepenthe

[Wrath of Dagon]

"tyrannical"?

Government without consent of the governed is tyranny, there's no hyperbole here.

[Walsingham]

"tyrannical"?

Government without consent of the governed is tyranny, there's no hyperbole here.

 

Hyperbole

 

As has already been explained to you by Enoch, the constitution does not assign direct democratic control of all parts of government to the people. That doesn't make it tyrannical.

 

This isn't the steps of a scaffold. Talking about tyranny just makes you sound like some nutter in a three cornered hat.

[Guard Dog]

"tyrannical"?

Government without consent of the governed is tyranny, there's no hyperbole here.

 

Hyperbole

 

As has already been explained to you by Enoch, the constitution does not assign direct democratic control of all parts of government to the people. That doesn't make it tyrannical.

 

This isn't the steps of a scaffold. Talking about tyranny just makes you sound like some nutter in a three cornered hat.

Well, tyranny is in the eye of the beholder. There is a new fad that seems to be springing up in municipal and county governments around the country called "Breed Specific Legislation". Basically the local government decides it does not approve certain dog breeds so they make it illegal to own them and if you are caught with one they are impounded and destroyed and you get a hefty fine. I have four pit bulls from the time I worked with a dog rescue back in Florida and they are on this list. Now Shelby County is proposing to make these dogs (whom I have raised from puppies and would not harm a fly) illegal? Sounds pretty tyrannical to me.

[Wrath of Dagon]

"tyrannical"?

Government without consent of the governed is tyranny, there's no hyperbole here.

 

Hyperbole

 

As has already been explained to you by Enoch, the constitution does not assign direct democratic control of all parts of government to the people. That doesn't make it tyrannical.

Are you even paying attention? I don't know that myself? And where did he explain that to me, and why would he have to explain it? It's like you're reading some other discussion, we're not talking about direct democracy, we're talking about an illegitimate power grab by the judiciary. Btw, to paraphrase Sonia Sotomayor: "Of course judges make policy. Oops, I wasn't supposed to say that"

Edited September 1, 2011 by Wrath of Dagon

[Gorth]

You don't need to look any further than the presidential election in 2000, where the new president was effectively appointed by the judiciary system of Florida. Coincidentally a state run by a relative of the then new president.

[Calax]

Which is also where the electoral college showed it's entire failure.

 

Gore won the popular vote by about 1% but lost the electoral vote by the one state.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Actually it was the US Supreme Court, Florida Supreme court was trying to install Al Gore.

[Gorth]

Gore won the popular vote by about 1% but lost the electoral vote by the one state.

Once you have a population and a country of a certain size, you'll always run into the problem of balancing the protection of the rights minorities against the tyranny of minorities. Short of dissolving the union and creating 52 independent countries, you will always have the issue of how to ensure everybody has a say, yet still be able to actually accomplish anything without getting bogged down.

 

EU has a similar problem, where they try to balance the influence of countries of very different sizes and influence without giving a lot of the smaller countries the feeling that they have simply been assimilated Borg style, yet without letting something like say Luxemburg and Estonia dictate German politics because they gang up on them 2 to 1.

[Hurlshort]

It's not like Bush was the first president to lose the popular election and still win the presidency. I believe the electoral college is a better option than a simple majority. It keeps all states relevant.

[Calax]

It's not like Bush was the first president to lose the popular election and still win the presidency. I believe the electoral college is a better option than a simple majority. It keeps all states relevant.

But eliminates the very reason that a vast majority would vote (in the fact that their vote counts). As it is 90% of the voting in the western states doesn't matter because by the time their polls close the politicians basically declare a winner.

[Walsingham]

Are you even paying attention? I don't know that myself? And where did he explain that to me, and why would he have to explain it? It's like you're reading some other discussion, we're not talking about direct democracy, we're talking about an illegitimate power grab by the judiciary. Btw, to paraphrase Sonia Sotomayor: "Of course judges make policy. Oops, I wasn't supposed to say that"

 

Your judges are subject to democratic controls and where they are not it is deliberate to ensure the independence of the judiciary.

 

I really don't see the point of arguing with you. I'm trying, as a kindness to you, to make you see your style is flawed, and you're merely burning calories and keystrokes by the futile employment of this rhetorical style. Simply consider how many people have accepted even a minor point from you in all the discussions we've had.

 

If you find your current approach sufficietly pleasing to ignore me, however, then by all means crack on.

[Gorgon]

Kid gets mauled by pitbull > media induced panic > legislation. Getting a dog is a 10+ year commitment and responsibility though so telling people they ether have to move or have their dog put down, it's not exactly fair.

[Gorth]

Kid gets mauled by pitbull > media induced panic > legislation. Getting a dog is a 10+ year commitment and responsibility though so telling people they ether have to move or have their dog put down, it's not exactly fair.

Well, people in their own home gets assaulted by dog that forced it's way in, chased them around and killed kid in front of family. I can sort of understand why they think that maybe some people are unsuited for having some dog breeds in areas where other people live. What you do in your own home is usually your own business, but when it's deadly to your neighbors, people sometimes do take offense at it.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Your judges are subject to democratic controls and where they are not it is deliberate to ensure the independence of the judiciary.

Federal judges are not subject to democratic controls except by impeachment. That is why they have to restrain themselves from making law instead of honestly interpreting it. In modern history they haven't restrained themselves, which is why we have tyranny of the judiciary in this country.

 

Edit: A tyrant is defined as an illegitimate ruler, look it up.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

Your judges are subject to democratic controls and where they are not it is deliberate to ensure the independence of the judiciary.

Federal judges are not subject to democratic controls except by impeachment. That is why they have to restrain themselves from making law instead of honestly interpreting it. In modern history they haven't restrained themselves, which is why we have tyranny of the judiciary in this country.

 

Edit: A tyrant is defined as an illegitimate ruler, look it up.

Tyrant

noun

1.

a sovereign or other ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly.

2.

any person in a position of authority who exercises power oppressively or despotically.

3.

a tyrannical or compulsory influence.

4.

an absolute ruler, especially one in ancient Greece or Sicily.