It is very disrespectful (to say nothing of unfortunate) when you value the ****ing flag more than the Constitution. I hate fascists, and there are some neighbors to the north and south I'd be glad to ship them to.

Oh wait, actually, since this is America, you're free to be a fascist if you want. How silly of me to forget.

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

This sounds perilously close to the reasoning that established a "right to privacy" in Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965), which served as a basis for the very wobbly intellectual foundation for Roe vs. Wade just eight years later.

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.

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.


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.


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--
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."

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.

__________________
Non concupisces domum proximi tui; nec desiderabis uxorem eius, non servum, non ancillam, non bowem, non asinum, nec omnia quae illius sunt.

Actually that is pretty much the reasoning. The Right of Privacy is linked to Abortion. They could have used the Ninth amendment to say you have the right of abortion, but no they used the IX amendment and the privacy interpreted in there to say you have that right. I do have to admit though that the Supreme Court was pulling something out of its *** when it passed this case.

__________________
Non concupisces domum proximi tui; nec desiderabis uxorem eius, non servum, non ancillam, non bowem, non asinum, nec omnia quae illius sunt.