Constitution question

[triangletiger 1,599]

48 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

The problem I see with this is that every time a case comes up that requires nuance, you'll need to pass an amendment.  Unfortunately much of our constitution isn't cut and dry and does require interpretation.  Our laws and judge's interpretations of them are what keep the constitution from being 20 miles long.

The problem is nobody seems to agree on where the line is between what is a nuanced approach in interpretation and application of the constitution and what is circumventing existing processes to clarify or amend the constitution.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

The problem I see with this is that every time a case comes up that requires nuance, you'll need to pass an amendment 

Can you portray this hypothetically?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Can you portray this hypothetically?

Sure.  Let's take a real live example.  The first amendment guarantees our freedom of speech against government, protects hate speech, etc.  But if someone happens to say "I would love to see our president dead" to the wrong person, you can be damn well sure they are getting a visit from an officer.  And even more so, our court system has said that's fine under the guise of terroristic threats.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

Sure.  Let's take a real live example.  The first amendment guarantees our freedom of speech against government, protects hate speech, etc.  But if someone happens to say "I would love to see our president dead" to the wrong person, you can be damn well sure they are getting a visit from an officer.  And even more so, our court system has said that's fine under the guise of terroristic threats.

I would say that from the Constitution’s inception, the First Amendment has never been understood/interpreted to permit speech with no strings attached. I cannot say with confidence that speech directed at inciting  and producing future lawless action has ever fallen in the purview of the First Amendment. 

Here’s what I wonder about, did the framers embrace the expansion of our government and that one day we would be a nation of statutes? For example, under our current Constitutional scheme and in light of the evolution of administrative law and the enacted statutes in which administrative agency authority is laid out, how is it that the EPA can-prior to formal adjudication-seize your land and yet it not constitute a “takings” under the Constitution? 

 

 

[triangletiger 1,599]

10 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I would say that from the Constitution’s inception, the First Amendment has never been understood/interpreted to permit speech with no strings attached. I cannot say with confidence that speech directed at inciting  and producing future lawless action has ever fallen in the purview of the First Amendment. 

Here’s what I wonder about, did the framers embrace the expansion of our government and that one day we would be a nation of statutes? For example, under our current Constitutional scheme and in light of the evolution of administrative law and the enacted statutes in which administrative agency authority is laid out, how is it that the EPA can-prior to formal adjudication-seize your land and yet it not constitute a “takings” under the Constitution? 

 

 

One thing's for sure, the U.S. Supreme Court is lot different and a much bigger player than it was at its inception.  Of course, we might be able to say the same thing about the Federal Government, in general.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, triangletiger said:

One thing's for sure, the U.S. Supreme Court is lot different and a much bigger player than it was at its inception.  Of course, we might be able to say the same thing about the Federal Government, in general.

I wasn’t alive during the Warren Court. But academics tells me that is perhaps the furthest the court “strayed” from its inception, in terms of judicial activism.

[AUbritt 611]

Sorry, been distracted and busy. Yes, the amendment process is how changeability was written in. Agree with @bigbird

[triangletiger 1,599]

21 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I wasn’t alive during the Warren Court. But academics tells me that is perhaps the furthest the court “strayed” from its inception, in terms of judicial activism.

I’d say it started down that road during the John Marshall court with judicial review in Marbury v. Madison.  (Not that I’m opposed to judicial review.)

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

33 minutes ago, triangletiger said:

I’d say it started down that road during the John Marshall court with judicial review in Marbury v. Madison.  (Not that I’m opposed to judicial review.)

When you get a chance, google “Wickard v. Filburn.”

[triangletiger 1,599]

5 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

When you get a chance, google “Wickard v. Filburn.”

There's a good podcast called More Perfect that's put out by the same folks that put out the Radiolab podcast that deals with interesting historical USSC cases, and they did an episode on the Commerce Clause.  Being an NPR (National Pinko Radio, as my father-in-law calls them) product, it does slant to the left a bit, but is still definitely worth a listen.   Here's a link:  https://www.npr.org/podcasts/481105292/more-perfect