Capitalism vs Socialism - America's Choice

[SottoVoce]

@johnwk2

@SottoVoce

Then give me a yes/no answer. Are there modern sources outside of the Constitution which are valid in guiding the interpretation and use of the Constitution?

Your question is Irrelevant to the fundamental rules of Constitutional Construction.

JWK

Of course there is income inequality. Some of our citizens work at improving their station in life, while others expect the force and hand of government to give them income equality.

If you’re going to continue to quote modern sources (American Jurisprudence) when making claims as to constitutional law and process, it most certainly does.

[Cynic]

Only if they support your argument.

[johnwk2]

@SottoVoce

@johnwk2

@SottoVoce

Then give me a yes/no answer. Are there modern sources outside of the Constitution which are valid in guiding the interpretation and use of the Constitution?

Your question is Irrelevant to the fundamental rules of Constitutional Construction.

JWK

Of course there is income inequality. Some of our citizens work at improving their station in life, while others expect the force and hand of government to give them income equality.

If you’re going to continue to quote modern sources (American Jurisprudence) when making claims as to constitutional law and process, it most certainly does.

Only in your mind.

JWK

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.— numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

[SottoVoce]

Wow. Still won’t answer the yes/no question.

[carpe_diem]

@BonAppetit

Where does socialism work?

You do realize that any time a Conservative asks this question on this site to a Liberal, that all they’re going to do is reply with one case of Socialism or two tops, that partially works, and expect everyone to believe reading it, that is how and why Socialism works. lol.

Just because they can mention one or two things that have partially worked in other countries. lol. But once again, Democrats are obsessed with what has worked in other Country’s, even if they don’t work in America. lol.

Let’s see…………America, Other Countries……………………America, Other Countries.
Nope! America isn’t Other Countries, no matter how bad Bernie boy, and the rest of the Dem Dems want it to be. lol.

[carpe_diem]

shhhhh, Socialists have their Dem Dem voters believing those things are Socialism.
They don’t know the difference. lol.

A lot of those Democrat run programs are so far in debt, that the Dem Politicians will
always come up with an excuse for them. They don’t know that those things
are paid for by Americans I guess.

[mobulis]

@carpe_diem

@BonAppetit

Where does socialism work?

You do realize that any time a Conservative asks this question on this site to a Liberal, that all they’re going to do is reply with one case of Socialism or two tops, that partially works, and expect everyone to believe reading it, that is how and why Socialism works. lol.

Just because they can mention one or two things that have partially worked in other countries. lol. But once again, Democrats are obsessed with what has worked in other Country’s, even if they don’t work in America. lol.

Let’s see…………America, Other Countries……………………America, Other Countries.
Nope! America isn’t Other Countries, no matter how bad Bernie boy, and the rest of the Dem Dems want it to be. lol.

So other country’s aren’t populated by human beings?

[mobulis]

@carpe_diem

shhhhh, Socialists have their Dem Dem voters believing those things are Socialism.
They don’t know the difference. lol.

A lot of those Democrat run programs are so far in debt, that the Dem Politicians will
always come up with an excuse for them. They don’t know that those things
are paid for by Americans I guess.

We get it, any govt program you don’t like is socialism.

[johnwk2]

@SottoVoce

Wow. Still won’t answer the yes/no question.

Wow! You still will not come out of the closet and admit you do not support adhering to the fundamental rules of Constitutional Construction, the most fundamental rule being summarized as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.— numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

[SottoVoce]

By your continued use of the modern and privately published American Jurisprudence as a guide for Constitutional process, it is safe to conclude you approve of non-Constitutional sources in matters of the Constitution. Again, welcome to modern Constitutional interpretation. It seems I’m not the one who just came out if the closet.

[johnwk2]

@SottoVoce

By your continued use of the modern and privately published American Jurisprudence as a guide for Constitutional process, it is safe to conclude you approve of non-Constitutional sources in matters of the Constitution. Again, welcome to modern Constitutional interpretation. It seems I’m not the one who just came out if the closet.

Are you now indicating you do agree with adhering to the fundamental rules of constitutional construction?

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[acsirip]

Guys, many of the western nations have a mix of capitalism+socialism. Social democracies. This SOCIALISM!!!1 alarmism is a bit histerical.

[SottoVoce]

Fundamental rules as in basic guidelines, sure. Some silly notion that it is an all-encompassing document which can only be taken in the context of a fictional telepathic time machine as to the intentions of the founding fathers, hell no. The Constitution is a framework which is to be taken in context with the present and living, not those who have been dead for 200 years.

[johnwk2]

@acsirip

This SOCIALISM!!!1 alarmism is a bit histerical.

Tell that to the people of Cuba, Venezuela and China.

JWK

In every communist dictatorial oppressive country, like Cuba, China, and Venezuela, the people are disarmed. Forewarned is forearmed.

[johnwk2]

@SottoVoce

Fundamental rules as in basic guidelines, sure. Some silly notion that it is an all-encompassing document which can only be taken in the context of a fictional telepathic time machine as to the intentions of the founding fathers, hell no. The Constitution is a framework which is to be taken in context with the present and living, not those who have been dead for 200 years.

Thank you for your novel opinion which I might add was totally refuted by Chief Justice Marshall:

"The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void." _ Chief Justice Marshall, MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

JWK

“The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void”. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

[SottoVoce]

And we’re back to non-Constitution sources for interpretation of the Constitution. Just can’t resist?

[johnwk2]

@SottoVoce

And we’re back to non-Constitution sources for interpretation of the Constitution. Just can’t resist?

No. You are back to ignoring the fundamental rules of Constitutional Construction.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[SottoVoce]

“Fundamental rules.” Where in the Constitution can I find an all encompassing list of these rules? If they’re there, why do you keep quoting people and sources outside the Constitution? Seems to me people after the Constitution was enacted have tried to define and give opinions on these “fundamental rules.”