Originalism: the narrow, fixed in time interpretation of the US Constitution is flawed and wrong

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

For crying out loud. Really? Ok

Why would the House and Senate have impeachment power if the DOJ or a state could prosecute the POTUS? You wouldn't need the power of impeachment if that was the case. So, yes, it is in there.

Second:

"Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section. 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. "

Those are the President's duties in the Constitution. If the Constitution gives the President those powers, how could any entity under the Constitution prosecute the President, even if the powers were abused? They can't. That is why we have impeachment. If the POTUS is impeached, then, by definition of impeachment, he us in violation of the Constituion and can be prosecuted.

 

Nothing there says he can violate any law he wants. And the only thing impeachment does is remove him from office and disqualify future office holding. 

Edited August 31, 2024 by Rebound

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Nothing there says he can violate any law he wants. And the only thing impeachment does is remove him from office and disqualify future office holding. 

He's not violating any law because no law supercedes the Constitution. If the President has the power and uses the power, it is Constitutional. If Congress decides the President abused the power, then they can impeach and convict the President. Only then is the action declared unconstitutional and thus subject to federal or local law.

[Rebound]

16 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

He's not violating any law because no law supercedes the Constitution. If the President has the power and uses the power, it is Constitutional. If Congress decides the President abused the power, then they can impeach and convict the President. Only then is the action declared unconstitutional and thus subject to federal or local law.

Dum Dum, the constitution does not say the President has the power to break ANY law.  If you could read, you’d know it. 
 

You know perfectly well that if the Founders intended to let the President break any law, the Constitution would say so.  But a President who can break any law is not President of a democracy, he’s a dictator. If Congress attempts impeachment, the President “officially” dissolves Congress, or arrests 1/3 of them.  That’s how dictatorships operate. 

[gatomontes99]

11 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Dum Dum, the constitution does not say the President has the power to break ANY law.  If you could read, you’d know it. 
 

You know perfectly well that if the Founders intended to let the President break any law, the Constitution would say so.  But a President who can break any law is not President of a democracy, he’s a dictator. If Congress attempts impeachment, the President “officially” dissolves Congress, or arrests 1/3 of them.  That’s how dictatorships operate. 

It isn't breaking the law if the President is exercising his authority in the Constitution. There is no authority great than the constitution and no law can supercede the constituion.

 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, myata said:

Then, it has to be the scripture because the process for reasonably efficient current updates is non-existent. You're stuck with a bunch of text for eternity, good luck.

But then, you have this, do read it literally

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
 

We are talking about applicability at this point, nothing else. Either you say that it only applies to one specific event in the history and what would be the point of adding it - nonsense. Or now you insist on changing the meaning of it, because it clearly reads as such a person must be first determined as such (presumably, legally), then prevented from running for office on that basis according to the clause, and only after that, the Congress may decide to overturn it, and not the other way around.

So you're talking from the both sides of your mouth: you want to have it literally when it suits your interests, and ignore it as irrelevant when it doesn't. Why and how not?

Trump never was involved in a rebellion. He's never been charged with it, he certainly never been convicted of it, and the courts found that those who tried to pimp that idea out did so unlawfully and that they interfered with democracy attempting to do so.

How are you and Putin any different? You both believe in the same things, lying and weaponizing the courts to try and suppress your opponents.

[User]

6 hours ago, Rebound said:

EXPLAIN then…. What words of the Constitution say that the President is allowed to break as many laws as he wants, with complete immunity from prosecution?  What words say THAT? 

What are you talking about? No one is saying the Constitution says this. 

 

[myata]

13 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

As for the clause you quoted, it was written for a specific set of circumstances. Those circumstances must be present for it to apply and are specifically listed in the clause.

You've got to be kidding us, that would be because you said so? You just said that it had to be read literally and where in the text did it say that? So you saying it must be read literally except I get to decide what you read? No you can't be serious only promoting your ideological agendas.

So you're saying all those people who built and created this system over the centuries they had to be dumb, right? We write this in our Constitution for these events that already happened in 18xx and may or actually, will never happen again in the exact literal sense. Seriously? Because you say so?

Or because that would be the only way to prop your agenda: you want to interpret it as such, every time contradicts your ideological agenda just because you can. In any case, not much of a plausible explanation. You want to stretch and massage it as you will, and then accuse others of manipulation. It's quite plain, you know?

I think: no. In cases like this, important and critical to the society, interpretation shouldn't be left to a circle of old people voting their ideas and fancies. It should be up to the people: this is our Constitution, and our democracy so we decide what it says and means. A plebiscite. You have a problem with that being all for people's democracy? After a good, diligent discussion of all aspects we the people decide what our constitution means and not some closed circle that isn't even elected by us. So much for love of the people.

13 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Twenty seven times laughable. The last amendment was as recently as 1992

One change (about Congressional salaries) before the advent of the Internet and the digital social age in a literal, fixed code? Four (excluding routine matters) in the entire post WWII period, 80 years? The last material change in 1971 who even remembers that? Look you don't appear to be serious here. Pushing for your idols and agendas sure but for a rational discussion there's no point in wasting any more time here.
 

Edited September 1, 2024 by myata

[myata]

This is by the way a typical cultist position: it's based on no reason; no rational arguments but only on the dogma, I have to have my way because I think that it's the only right one.

It has to be literal! 

- OK. Where does it mention "specific events"? No. Is there any reference to 1861, in the text? Nope. Any mentioning of Congress being involved before the decision of exclusion is made? None. Would it be anything but "unwise" to make provisions in the Constitution that apply only to one specific event in the past? What do you think?

No, but I have to have my way! Exclusionism, a claim to the exclusive right to own and interpret the scripture is nothing new in human history. And in a democracy, a clear sign of degradation and erosion of principles.

Edited September 1, 2024 by myata

[User]

2 hours ago, myata said:

It has to be literal! 

Um, yeah, that is the point of the law. If it were not, then it would have no real meaning, it would just be up to the whims of those enforcing it. 

If you want to change it, there are mechanisms to do so. 

 

[gatomontes99]

6 hours ago, myata said:

You've got to be kidding us, that would be because you said so? You just said that it had to be read literally and where in the text did it say that? So you saying it must be read literally except I get to decide what you read? No you can't be serious only promoting your ideological agendas.

So you're saying all those people who built and created this system over the centuries they had to be dumb, right? We write this in our Constitution for these events that already happened in 18xx and may or actually, will never happen again in the exact literal sense. Seriously? Because you say so?

Or because that would be the only way to prop your agenda: you want to interpret it as such, every time contradicts your ideological agenda just because you can. In any case, not much of a plausible explanation. You want to stretch and massage it as you will, and then accuse others of manipulation. It's quite plain, you know?

I think: no. In cases like this, important and critical to the society, interpretation shouldn't be left to a circle of old people voting their ideas and fancies. It should be up to the people: this is our Constitution, and our democracy so we decide what it says and means. A plebiscite. You have a problem with that being all for people's democracy? After a good, diligent discussion of all aspects we the people decide what our constitution means and not some closed circle that isn't even elected by us. So much for love of the people.

One change (about Congressional salaries) before the advent of the Internet and the digital social age in a literal, fixed code? Four (excluding routine matters) in the entire post WWII period, 80 years? The last material change in 1971 who even remembers that? Look you don't appear to be serious here. Pushing for your idols and agendas sure but for a rational discussion there's no point in wasting any more time here.
 

Why did you have to quote me out of context? I said it was for a very specific set of circumstances and people and I described those circumstances and people, illustrating Donald Trump did not fit those circumstances or people.

The clause is for insurectionist. That is a specific circumstance. Trump is not an insurectionist. It doesn't matter that you want him to be so badly that you think it actually happened. He is not an insurrectionist. The clause also does not include the POTUS. It includes appointees, not elected officials in the executive office.

All you have to do is read the words for what they say, not what you want them to mean.

As for amendments, if it happened 30 years ago and 27 times, it is doable. Your insistence it isn't is ridiculous. In fact, there is a movement (right now) trying to make changes to the Constitution. It is called the Convention of States and they are in the process of calling a Convention of States. It isn't easy. But it is doable.

https://conventionofstates.com/

 

Edited September 1, 2024 by gatomontes99

[myata]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Why did you have to quote me out of context?

I did no such thing. You said that it has to be interpreted literally. Then reading the quoted clause literally, it's up to the election or other authorized offices to designate a candidate as such and exclude them from the ballot. Only after that the Congress can interfere to overrule the decision. This is what it says.

Trump was not a president at the time of declaring his run, and president is in fact an officer under the United States ("This grant of authority establishes the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch, entrusted with supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity. (457 U.S. 749-750).”)

If you read it literally you have to follow it word by word and literally. What escape will you try this time?

Edited September 1, 2024 by myata

[gatomontes99]

29 minutes ago, myata said:

I did no such thing. You said that it has to be interpreted literally. Then reading the quoted clause literally, it's up to the election or other authorized offices to designate a candidate as such and exclude them from the ballot. Only after that the Congress can interfere to overrule the decision. This is what it says.

Trump was not a president at the time of declaring his run, and president is in fact an officer under the United States ("This grant of authority establishes the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch, entrusted with supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity. (457 U.S. 749-750).”)

If you read it literally you have to follow it word by word and literally. What escape will you try this time?

You are making stuff up. You mean to tell me they specifically call out Senators and Congressman but used vague language to include the president? Hell no. They said officer. The President is an elected official. Those two things have different meanings. Officers are appointed. Trump was not appointed.

As for the insurrection thing, you are making sh1t up. No where would our Constitution give an election official the authority to exclude someone from a ballot based on his/her sole interpretation of insurrection. Further, Trump never did anything to engage in insurrection or rebellion.

You are making these weird a$$ assumptions that you wish were true and expecting everyone else to just go along with it. But you are way off base. If someone is going to be excluded from a ballot, there has to be an actual conviction for insurrection on their record. That is why we have a law prohibiting insurrection.

[myata]

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Your insistence it isn't is ridiculous. In fact, there is a movement (right now) trying to make changes to the Constitution.

We have the facts to speak for themselves here: the last non-trivial amendment was passed in the early 70s. That's two generations ago, way before the Internet.

However a closed group unelected as well, assuming the privilege to read and interpret the Constitution, put in their readings something that it doesn't say, or ignore what it says clearly and explicitly is a clear and real danger to the democracy. People need a working mechanism to ensure that their say can always be the final one; or it can be the first step to alienation then possibly, usurpation of power.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, User said:

Um, yeah, that is the point of the law. If it were not, then it would have no real meaning, it would just be up to the whims of those enforcing it. 

If you want to change it, there are mechanisms to do so. 

 

This was my first thought.  "REinterpretation" Is just a weak ass lazy way to try and change something without having to go through the process. The law means now what the law meant then, there is no reinterpreting. If you want to change it and modernize it then fine there is a process for that and maybe that process should be changed to be a more regular occurring thing. Maybe there should be a Statewide National Review automatically every 20 years or something.

But regardless if you want to change something because you feel it's out of date then get off your ass and go through the process and change it. It's actually easier in the states to change the constitution than it is in Canada are we still managed to do it not long ago.

[myata]

7 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

As for the insurrection thing, you are making sh1t up. No where would our Constitution give an election official the authority to exclude someone from a ballot based on his/her sole interpretation of insurrection. Further, Trump never did anything to engage in insurrection or rebellion.

Are you backing out now from the literal idea? This is what it says, again:
""No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States..."

I will not try to argue whether it applies to running for president that's an expert issue. But it does, explicitly mention Senators and Representatives in the House. It says just that right up there. Now those are elected, and the Congress can be involved only to overrule the ban. So yes, following your own words, the clause implies that the condition is determined via some due process; and only after that the Congress can intervene to overrule it. You have to follow what you preach, or no? Can you decide at last?

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, myata said:

Are you backing out now from the literal idea? This is what it says, again:
""No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States..."

I will not try to argue whether it applies to running for president that's an expert issue. But it does, explicitly mention Senators and Representatives in the House. It says just that right up there. Now those are elected, and the Congress can be involved only to overrule the ban. So yes, following your own words, the clause implies that the condition is determined via some due process; and only after that the Congress can intervene to overrule it. You have to follow what you preach, or no? Can you decide at last?

This went to court already.  Read the decision. 

Before this section can be relevant the person has to be found guilty of the crime of insurrection or rebellion.  You don't get the right to say he did  such a thing and neither does some loser at the state level. 

So what they did trying to deny  him was to try to stop democracy.  Not trump - them

And you seem to fully support that. 

Mr Putin? Is that you?

[gatomontes99]

2 hours ago, myata said:

We have the facts to speak for themselves here: the last non-trivial amendment was passed in the early 70s. That's two generations ago, way before the Internet.

However a closed group unelected as well, assuming the privilege to read and interpret the Constitution, put in their readings something that it doesn't say, or ignore what it says clearly and explicitly is a clear and real danger to the democracy. People need a working mechanism to ensure that their say can always be the final one; or it can be the first step to alienation then possibly, usurpation of power.

Ok, because YOU say an amendment is trivial, it doesn't count? Are you serious? Do you know how absurd that is?

You said it was nearly impossible to do. I say it has been done 27 times. You say it hasn't been don't lately, I point to 30 years ago. Now you don't agree because it didn't meet some unspoken standard? Give me a break. Be serious.

[gatomontes99]

2 hours ago, myata said:

Are you backing out now from the literal idea? This is what it says, again:
""No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States..."

I will not try to argue whether it applies to running for president that's an expert issue. But it does, explicitly mention Senators and Representatives in the House. It says just that right up there. Now those are elected, and the Congress can be involved only to overrule the ban. So yes, following your own words, the clause implies that the condition is determined via some due process; and only after that the Congress can intervene to overrule it. You have to follow what you preach, or no? Can you decide at last?

In order for that amendment to be used, the person must have been convicted of insurrection or rebellion. How do I know? Because the 5th amendment says so: "presumed innocent until proven guilty".

You don't get to be an authoritarian dictator and remove anyone you want from the ballot just because you insist they did something. You have to prove it in a court of law. Short of that, the 14th does not apply.

As far as the President is concerned, the Office of the President was excluded. The term officer was used. Here is an explanation of what an officer is as it pertains to the Constituion: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_United_States

The President is not an officer. The president is elected as an official. /endthread

[User]

On 8/31/2024 at 5:41 PM, myata said:

So you're talking from the both sides of your mouth: you want to have it literally when it suits your interests, and ignore it as irrelevant when it doesn't. Why and how not?

How are you this ignorant about this?

The issue is not taking the Constitution literally or not, it's your absurd accusation that Trump engaged in insurrection that is the issue here. 

[suds]

3 hours ago, myata said:

We have the facts to speak for themselves here: the last non-trivial amendment was passed in the early 70s. That's two generations ago, way before the Internet.

However a closed group unelected as well, assuming the privilege to read and interpret the Constitution, put in their readings something that it doesn't say, or ignore what it says clearly and explicitly is a clear and real danger to the democracy. People need a working mechanism to ensure that their say can always be the final one; or it can be the first step to alienation then possibly, usurpation of power.

There really is no such thing as a final say. Supreme Court rulings are often changed or overruled by subsequent  Supreme Courts. There is an amendment process as others have pointed out. Allowing the people to have the final say brings us back to ancient Greece and  majority (or mob rule). And what does the average American know about the law or unintended consequences by their decision making? If activist judges are what you're worried about a notwithstanding clause makes far more sense than what you're proposing.

[myata]

11 hours ago, suds said:

Allowing the people to have the final say brings us back to ancient Greece and  majority (or mob rule)

WTH? Referendums are wrong now? Where? Its a staple, normal and regular thing in many advanced democracies. Where are we heading in time, seriously? And who was saying that elitism was oh so wrong only a moment back? Just look where the folk-loving elites chastising agenda (ostensibly, can't be all about just elect me, can it?) will get you in a flash, if not watching closely.

Amazing also how the same group that claims to love the holy texts exactly and literally as they were written suddenly claims the privilege to read in them something they aren't saying and change their obvious meaning. "Robbery is an offense" isn't it clear to anyone of a sound mind? No but wait! See, in the previous applications, only robbers with family names starting with "B, N and K" were convicted that should mean something! Does it mention anything about conditions and exceptions in the scripture, literally? No answer.

A closed group that is bent on exclusive access to the Constitution and interpretation of its meaning. Priests, in the times of pharaohs. Unelected too. With no way for the public to decide what their Constitution should mean and how it should be read. Define elitism.

[Nationalist]

12 hours ago, suds said:

There really is no such thing as a final say. Supreme Court rulings are often changed or overruled by subsequent  Supreme Courts. There is an amendment process as others have pointed out. Allowing the people to have the final say brings us back to ancient Greece and  majority (or mob rule). And what does the average American know about the law or unintended consequences by their decision making? If activist judges are what you're worried about a notwithstanding clause makes far more sense than what you're proposing.

So...you don't like Democracy.

Understood.

[reason10]

On 8/31/2024 at 8:12 AM, myata said:

The proposition that the meaning of the Constitution was intended to be literal, fixed in time and has to be interpreted as such is based on two assumptions that are entertained by the judges and pundits who adopt and promote it today:

First, that formulation of general foundational principles guiding the evolution of the legal framework of the society isn't possible. This postulate is overturned by logic and the factual record in the history: it is obvious to any intelligent being that the state of a society cannot be captured and frozen in time; it changes continuously and so should be any literal and frozen constitutional framework. Then, the US constitution has survived for over two centuries, based mostly on the general principles coined centuries back so an expression of general norms and principles guiding the society was possible back then. So, what the proponents of this idea want to tell us, we are less smart, regressing in time relative to the democracy and constitutional thought of our ancestors and founders: while they, back then, dared to think and form general foundations and principles, we here can only think of coining, copy-pasting them in fixed and literal terms.

What would be the point of codifying a rule or precept that is specifically related to a certain unique event that may not happen again, ever? No, doesn't make any sense: if someone, anyone would be non-smart enough (is there a better word?) to think that, they would be saying that our ancestors, the creators of this system that we used for centuries, were no smarter than them. Wrong. Not true. They were intelligent, daring and willing to think and create and history itself is the proof and testament of that.

But then, one cannot escape the conclusion that in this interpretation, of narrow, literal, coined meaning of the Constitution there has to be a functional, efficient process of changing an updating it as and when needed. Disagreeing with it would imply that a society can be frozen in time: and how non-smart would that be?

One couldn't logically avoid this double dumb dead end: if the founding fathers were no smarter than us, then we have to assume that society doesn't and shouldn't change. Back to horsepower. What is electricity? What Internet?

That this non-starter idea could capture such a following itself can be an indication, a symptom of intellectual degradation, regress. Why and how not?

Apparently you haven't read the Constitution. There is this thing tacked on the end of it called THE AMENDMENTS. That means Congress changed a few things.

Once again, your inferior blue state school didn't do its job.

On 8/31/2024 at 7:10 PM, Rebound said:

Nothing there says he can violate any law he wants. And the only thing impeachment does is remove him from office and disqualify future office holding. 

Trump never violated ANY laws.

 

You NAZIS just don't want him back in power.

 

Seig Heil.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, myata said:

WTH? Referendums are wrong now? Where? Its a staple, normal and regular thing in many advanced democracies. Where are we heading in time, seriously? And who was saying that elitism was oh so wrong only a moment back? Just look where the folk-loving elites chastising agenda (ostensibly, can't be all about just elect me, can it?) will get you in a flash, if not watching closely.

Amazing also how the same group that claims to love the holy texts exactly and literally as they were written suddenly claims the privilege to read in them something they aren't saying and change their obvious meaning. "Robbery is an offense" isn't it clear to anyone of a sound mind? No but wait! See, in the previous applications, only robbers with family names starting with "B, N and K" were convicted that should mean something! Does it mention anything about conditions and exceptions in the scripture, literally? No answer.

A closed group that is bent on exclusive access to the Constitution and interpretation of its meaning. Priests, in the times of pharaohs. Unelected too. With no way for the public to decide what their Constitution should mean and how it should be read. Define elitism.

Ok commie. 

[myata]

So to round it up, there are several options to define and maintain current, with the state of the society a broad foundational system of guidelines and principles of a democratic system.

One is to understand the statements as general guidelines that are interpreted according to the current and actual condition of the society. If new essential principles emerge, or their meaning changes to the point where earlier formulas become incorrect, imprecise or confusing, etc, amendments are made. This makes sense.

Another is to interpret the text literally exactly as written and word for word. That option is possible, but it depends on the existence of an effective and functional update process. Basic rationality and sanity dictate that: would one want a precise, literal code that is not current or relevant anymore? The answer is quite obvious.

And then there is a claim that is simply nonsensical and impossible: for the prerogative to read the intent behind the text, that existed at the time of creation. That would be sheer nonsense. No one can know, with any confidence the intent of another person that is not expressed explicitly even right now, forget decades and centuries back. The claims to that have to be deemed simply irrational: not much different from voodoo dancing and similar kind, really.

A general law was made, its formula explicit and clear. It was applied to the circumstances at some specific moments and cases. Does it anyhow limit general applicability of the law as formulated only to those specific cases? Absurd. No fancy words, nor rituals can make the impossible plausible.

So two options are possible and which one should apply should be decided by the people, not (unelected) priests in fancy robes. And the other one is sheer nonsense that has no ground in reason, rational and objective reality.

Edited September 2, 2024 by myata