Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman15
What exactly is ambiguous about them?
|
Well let's see. If the point of the amendments was to not list our rights so that the government could not say we have only the rights listed and yet it has needed constant interpretation, I say that fits the definition of ambiguous. Unclear, shadowy, needs interpreting. I was in a Constitutional Law class this semster, and my professor (a lawyer) did not like the IX amendment because he felt that it gave no rights. Personally I like the amendment, I think that people who want to abuse the system can say we don't have certain rights so we need an ambiguous amendment. Privacy right now is the hot issue. The SCOTUS has granted us the right of privacy via cases. If it was not for their interpretation of Amendment IX, we would not have that right.
Quote:
|
No, you can't "just ignore" the amendment, that is illegal, a crime if you will. The Constitution is a linear document, meaning that which was written LAST is law and trumps everything before it. Thus, the elastic clause, even given your incredibly loose and borderline ignorant reading, cannot ever legally trump any of the amendments. I don't mean ignorant in an insulting way, but for a politician to simply "ignore" an amendment is tantamount to a speeder simply ignoring the speed limit; it's still illegal.
|
No you cannot just ignore it, but you can look the other way very well. Last I check, the Constitution is a living document. The current Congressmen/President/Supreme Court Justices need to interpret it with each passing year. The Amendments do trump the original text, however when both are so broad and vague where does one end and the other begin. What was the original purpose of the IX and X amendments? Do you know? In case you don't I shall tell you. James Madison wanted these two amendments to be ambiguous so that the government cannot trample our rights and the states' rights. However, as is the case with humans, we took that to mean that either the Elastic Clause is Supreme or the Tenth amendment is Supreme.
The Elastic Clause does not get trumped by the Tenth Amendment. It allows Congress to pass any law necessary and proper with the carrying out its duties, including laws that the states believe belong to them. Education is a State's Right, yet the No Child Left Behind Act was passed using the Elastic Clause. The Tenth Amendment does not get trumped by the elastic clause either. States can try to use the X amendment to override NCLB, it won't work. The SCOTUS has decided that in cases involving laws that contradict, the Federal Law is Supreme, unless the law is unconstitutional (That would require you to prove NCLB unconstitutional which is actually very hard). You have chosen the tenth amendment over the Elastic Clause. That decision empowers the states, however, you must realize that a war has been fought over this issue already. The Civil War was not a war of pro-slavery vs. anti-slavery. That is the simplified version of it. It was actually national supremacy vs. States' Rights. Granted the States Rights' included the slavery issue, but it was not just slavery.
Quote:
|
Have you actually read the Constitution? I'm being serious, because I don't think you have. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to amend it? Combine the convoluted nature of the amendment process with Amendment X, which limits federal powers to those SPECIFICALLY LISTED (and thus, overrides any loose interpretation of clause 18 ), and you have a clear indicator of the founder's mindset and the text of the document. They wanted a solid, concrete Constitution, and they got it. Loose Constructionism has only been advocated by people seeking to limit liberty and expand the powers of government. In America we call those people tyrants.
|
Well now you have offended me. Of course I read the Constitution. Do you realize that it really is not that difficult to amend compared to our last government? You cannot rely on only amendments to allow the government to evolve. You need to interpret the Constitution loosly or the government will not be able to adjust fast enough. It happened in Rome in the Third Century, it took a radical idea and change of government to save them from the crisis. The Constitution is not a suicide pact (I heard that somewhere before...I cannot remember) it needs to breath so that the government is not stuck in a 20th century mindset in a 21/22 century life. Yes the Founders wanted a concreate Constitution, but even they realized that if you don't give it room to grow naturally, it will not work.
Quote:
|
Using your mindset, clause 18 can be used to strip Americans of their right to arm themselves, speak freely, or demand compensation for seized assets. You're wrong, read the document, and read it again if you don't understand it. Better yet, provide for me a single passage, clause, section, or article of the Constitution that is ambiguous. I'll be happy to clear up your confusion.
|
First off, given the First Eight amendments, you cannot strip us of those rights. Actually, given your strict reading, where does it say that Religion and State must be seperated in the Constitution or the Amendments? All I see is Amendment I--
Quote:
|
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
|
This does not specifically say that we must seperate Religion and State. That is an interpretation. One that I agree with, but an interpretation non-the-less.
Passages that are ambiguous (either in their own right or by Case Law):
Article I Section 5 "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members..."
Article I Section 8 "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Amendment VIII "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Amendment IX "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"
Amendment X "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."
Quote:
|
Marbury v. Madison granted the court the power of legal nullification, and thus, is unconstitutional. You fail to recognize the fact that this ruling occured during a period of Congressional weakness and executive power, and thus, could not be effectively contested. Over the years people have simply accepted the idea that SCOTUS can nullify laws, just like they have accepted the idea that state laws forbidding jury trials for speeding tickets are legit (they aren't, and I've had a case dismissed for demanding trial by jury). Just because it HAPPENS, doesn't make it LEGAL. But, I could be wrong, so please, show me in Article III where SCOTUS is granted the power to nullify congressional statute. Just pick it out of the document, it should be easy to find.
|
Actually, Marbury v. Madison came during Congressional Strength. The ruling power got what they wanted so their was no need to challenge the case. I think you are agreeing with me here that the SCOTUS is using an unconstitutional power. I believe it to be necessary though that the SCOTUS can nullify laws, because the Constitution needs interpretation.