ALTHOUSE: So, maybe you noticed that after all that discussion about whether the commerce power supports the individual mandate, I never said whether I thought it did.
CLASS: Yes, and... does it?
ALTHOUSE: We'll have to hear the answer from the Supreme Court.
CLASS: But what do you think?
ALTHOUSE: What does it matter what I think?
CLASS: You're grading our exams.
ALTHOUSE, enigmatically: And that's exactly my point.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
97 comments:
Althouse, the sphinx of Madison.
Your class shouldn't be asking what you think.
They should be asking you what you think the Supreme Court will do.
So what do you think the Supreme Court will do, Professor?
But gee Professor, are you really supposed to teach them to think for themselves? This is college after all. They are just paying for the degree, not the education.
Weirdly meta. I don't know whether to hope they actually say this, because it's such a nice proof of your point; or to hope they're smarter than that, and see the point without ptodding.
That's tragic. They've already given up the ideal of the best possible answer they can give for the calculated best possible argument you want.
So the Supreme Court is grading Congress' exams?
For their purposes, does it matter so much what the ultimate outcome might be? They need to be able to spot the issues and make the best arguments either way.
ricpic said...
That's tragic. They've already given up the ideal of the best possible answer they can give for the calculated best possible argument you want.
To be fair, the title says this is an imagined dialog. That's why I had my dilemma: if they say these things, the Professor gets to slyly make her point through their own words and behaviors, without ever once stating her point implicitly; but if they don't, that means she has taught them better.
There is a hint in the Doris Day song from "The Professor Who Knew Too Much". When she was a little Girl The Professor asked her mother such questions and Mom punted too. But Que Sera Sera may be Latin for "Question Sarah Palin twice".
Oh, that's cruel and unusual.
And you should not be a weathervane for SCOTUS. What this Court thinks and what another ten years down the road thinks could be very different.
PS As a calc prof of mine (Russian) once observed, "Is cruel, is not unusual".
How did your class do in correctly anticipating the Supreme's choice to let the 7th Circuit's decision stand, rebuking UW Madison's discrimination against Christians?
Well, it's a good thing Ann isn't really a Latin teacher, because they are supposed to have known the right answers for 2000 years.
You mean lawyers should be able to think and reason? Too hard, they need to be told.
That's why I chose engineering. Every other subject is just bullshit.
Your right it may no longer matter what we think
Cruel neutrality . . .
Shiloh knows what you think.
About everything.
ricpic said...
That's tragic. They've already given up the ideal of the best possible answer they can give for the calculated best possible argument you want.
Precisely. The job is not to be right; the job is to persuade. Bit of a shame, but in this scenario, teaching that outcomes matter is a part of a lawyer's toolkit.
Thus, Althouse is to conlaw students as Anthony Kennedy is to Obamacare-opposing attorneys general.
the kids will have to lay out the best arguments on both sides. This would be an excellent topic for them to practice writing for the exam, and an excellent Moot Court topic as well, because courts are split on the constitutionality, and the Supreme Court has not taken up the matter yet.
Elements of the counterargument to compelling individuals to buy insurance is that proof of insurance is essential to receiving health care, and that all but an exceptional few of us will need to enter the health care market at some pre-65 point in our lives.
To me there should be an opt-out mechanism as there was for Social Security, with opting back in either prohibited, or requires payment of the foregone insurance payments, plus a penalty, to eliminate the moral hazard problem of waiting till you're sick to pay in.
Easy answer to an easy question.
Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Souter will find it constitutional.
Alito, Thomas and maybe Roberts we can put in the unconstitutional camp.
Kennedy is a waffle, but do the Dems need Kennedy? I think in the end he will rule it is constitutional.
Here's a 2005 opinion:
"Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective. As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.”
This was of course penned by Scalia. It will take quit a bit of shamelessness to ignore that recent opinion and vote against the mandate. However, it is Scalia we are talking about...
I predict the vote will be 5-4 mandate is constitutional and Scalia has no shame in being hypocritical. Maybe I'm wrong on Scalia (I doubt it) than it will be 6-3 mandate is constitutional.
Of course the court will uphold it. If prior jurisprudence is any guide the framers wasted a lot of ink enumerating powers when they could have just said Congress can do anything it wants.
Here is what your class needs to know: It doesn't matter what the Constitution says, or doesn't say, or what the Commerce Clause means or doesn't mean.
It's only about who can successfully pack the court to get the outcome they want. As long as there are 5 justices who agree ... they can claim the Constitution says the sky is purple.
That is all they really need to know.
That it's all bullshit. That their education is meaningless. That lady justice is a whore - and a cheap one at that.
They really do think they will get a better grade if they agree with teacher, don't they?
Wonder where they learned that?
"College" comes to mind.
I almost forgot, if it is a 5-4 ruling, perhaps the Dems can send out their media minions and crow that it was a 7-2 opinion because basically everybody agreed on the issues at hand, sort of like this case:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_949/
Shiloh knows what you think.
About everything.
~~~~~
AA's a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma much like myself!
She's an incessant/insufferable whiner about imaginary MSM bias, much like Ed Schultz on MSNBC is such a whiner he's unwatchable. hmm, what does the Supreme Court think about whiners. ;)
Good thing AA ignores me, eh. btw, there was this conservative fool at Nate Silver's old blog who said he was gonna totally ignore me. Big mistake as then I could say whatever I wanted about him w/out impunity lol and surely it drove him bat shit crazy.
but, but, but AA has her "band of brothers" here to defend her honor so she does not have to engage as she remains above the fray.
Also know she told Tim Noah she's financially secure and yet asks for $$$ at her blog. Hey, free enterprise er supply and demand.
Also know ad nauseam 5/4 SC votes shows how divided America currently is on a plethora of issues ~ civil rights, equal protection under the law, states rights, free speech etc.
Know I'm never gonna be on AA's Christmas card list.
Know she truly is a believer in free speech! :)
Just wanted to end my post on a positive note ...
apologies to Winston Churchill
It certainly doesn't matter what the Framers thought.
Once you can call inactivity a form of activity, you'll believe anything.
The Constitution as a Random Wish Generator.
Imagined dialouge with my conlaw class:
Althouse: So, I notice someone left something on my desk. Who did it.
Dose of Sanity: Not me. Oh no. Not me. I would never do such a thing. Not even for fifty bucks would I leave a Kotex on you desk.
Althouse: I was talking about this ticket to the governor's speech but thanks for answering another question.
Dose of Sanity: Err, I could change my name.
Althouse: Here's a dime. Go call another Law School and see if they will take you because you have burned your bridges here.
Dose of Sanity: Err, a call cost more that a dime unless I am going to call 1982.
Althouse: GEEETTTT OOOOOUTTTTTT!!!!
Paddy O said...
Shiloh knows what you think.
About everything.
He doesn't know what he thinks
until Kos tells him.
Pogo - It certainly doesn't matter what the Framers thought. Once you can call inactivity a form of activity, you'll believe anything.
You need to be more sophisticated and less doctrinal than that.
Shiloh, man are you trying to get the teacher to notice you?
Why so needy dude?
Just be funny and it will happen buddy.
Here I will start for you:
Why did Obama cross the Road?
He doesn't have a birth certificate!
J. Scalia is talking about "activities"? Is refusing to purchase health insurance an "activity"? J. Scalia could answer "no" and still be consistent with the language quoted by Foote.
The group dynmaics of the Supreme Court justices has significantly more effect on what the decision will be than Constitutional Law does.
This is what is important these days. If you want the Supremes to decide a certain way, you need to pitch to their institutional proclivities rather than put too much faith in a legal argument. The law is quaint, and so is the Constitution.
It will probably be a 5-4 decision siding with Team Obama. That allows the SCOTUS to bend over to the Executive, while still allowing enough room for vigorous but inconsequential dissent.
Actually kos has quite a few liberal whiners just like Althouse has quite a few conservative whiners.
The yin and yang of political blogs.
>
Bill Walton was totally against Nixon and the Vietnam War and was an activist protester. During Watergate coach John Wooden mentioned that he should write a letter to Nixon expressing his feelings, rather than outright protest.
Soooo Walton wrote a letter to Nixon sayin' he should resign for the good of the country and a couple mos. later Nixon resigned lol as once again coach Wooden was a frickin' genius!
>
Trooper, I'm sure AA notices everybody at her blog ~ some more than others. Just like I skim over many posters here, I'm sure she does the same.
Who has the time.
If AA's blog wasn't somewhat interesting, I wouldn't be here. But I do like to point out hypocrisy as again, nobody's perfect and political blogs are manna from heaven re: hypocrisy.
Enigmatic answers; another reason not to put lawyers in charge of anything important.
Actually Shiloh she has files on everyone who posts here. Meade compiles them and they are crossreferanced so that if she wants someone to comment she simply throws up a post and she knows that person will comment.
If she wants me to comment she mentions Yogi Bear, the Yankees, the New York Giants, sandwiches, fat people or tits.
If she wants to hear from Andrew Sullivan, Loafing Oaf or the other liberal loons she mentions Sarah Palin.
If she wants to hear from downtownlad she hits on gay marraige.
And if she wants to hear from rhhardin she mentions dobermans or chickens.
It's simple really. That's how you drive traffic. You give people what they want.
I guess the Professor could have really been cruel and just said, "what does the Constitution say?" Nah, that would just be giving them a clue as to what the exam question would be...
If I make a request? If any student argues that the Constitution is just really old and outdated; please flunk them. We really don't need anymore people like that being taken seriously in the professional world.
that's just good reporting right there
"Is that going to be on the exam?"
That question makes my skin crawl. It is the best index of the worst students.
That question makes my skin crawl. It is the best index of the worst students.
I used to ask that question all the time in classes that a) I was being forced to take and b) found uninteresting. It's not an indicator of a bad student. It's an indicator of a student who wants to spend the minimum amount of time on that class.
Leo Ladenson said...
"Is that going to be on the exam?"
That question makes my skin crawl. It is the best index of the worst students.
Seriously. In my wildest dreams, I would've never thought to ask that question. My perhaps naive assumption was: "If the teacher taught it or assigned it, it would be on the exam." It took me all of high school and part of college to realize there wasn't room for all of the material within a single exam; but even after that, I would've never presumed to know what might be left out. The gall to ask what will be left out astounds me.
has files lol
So AA tries to keep all her "comrades" happy er appeased ;)
Used to be a movie nut ~ made a couple posts in the conspiracy movie thread yesterday.
Mentioned previously one of my Rep buddies at another forum used to keep all her conservative talkin' pts. in a folder ~ always ready for battle.
And yes, Big Brother is always watching. One of the liberal regulars at my first political forum used Winston Smith as a nic.
Ha, I spent most of my time in Con Law demonstrating how the Supreme Court usually got it WRONG (grade of A, by the way).
The judiciary long ago stopped being arbiters of law, preferring politics and personal ideology instead.
In testing on the issue, the question isn't what the Court will do, or what the professor thinks, but what are the arguments and counterarguments for both sides?
And besides -- Commerce Clause and Taxing Power, etc. are NOT the only unconstitutional aspects of the mandate -- it is also grossly violative of both substantive and procedural due process. And what with all the arbitrarily handed out waivers, huge equal protection problems arise as well.
Bender said...
And what with all the arbitrarily handed out waivers, huge equal protection problems arise as well.
Bender, when the Republicans took the House, I said at the time that they had the wrong strategy. Rather than the uphill fight for repeal, they should push a bill that would be sort of a "shall issue" for waivers: if you ask for a waiver, you get it, no questions asked. That would take cronyism and equal protection problems right out of the equation, and I think it would be very easy to pitch to the public. "Why shouldn't your company get the same treatment as those big guys get?"
In college 40 years ago, I remember a professor telling us with regard to the essay he had just assigned: "It doesn't matter what side you take. Your grade will depend on how well you argue your case."
With the exception of a professor like Althouse it is hard to imagine a professor doing that today.
I guarantee at schools like Columbia, where I went, certainly no professors are telling their students there are no "right" answers. I rather expect the implicit message is "extra credit for answers that are politically correct."
I keep reading this line as: ...dialoque with my coleslaw class...
"It doesn't matter what side you take. Your grade will depend on how well you argue your case."
With the exception of a professor like Althouse it is hard to imagine a professor doing that today.
Being able to develop arguments for both sides is the essential skill on a law school exam.
Are grades due today?
I give Althouse an A-.
Not bad; quite good, in fact.
But, room for improvement. She needs to work on recognizing and minimizing the influence of her ever-present me-me-me-me-centric-POV as she interprets the world. But, that seems to be especially tough for baby-boomers. Nobody's perfect.
The senior design project for civil engineers at UVA was whether to build a new football stadium or expand Scott Stadium. My group was the only one that chose expansion because on campus stadium was better and was cheaper. We were only group to choose expansion and we were told that the Athlete Director appreciated the presentation. Late on the stadium was expansed. Even though we made best decision we did not get best grade because the less expensive decision did not require as much design work.
Once on a thermodynamics test one student put down 69 joules as answer without any work. The grader ask if perhaps Country had cheated. The Professor said no, no one else in his class got the right answer. But Country got no credit just because his guess was right
Are Wisconsin firefighters claiming you may be more likely to die in a fire if collective bargaining is reduced?
Ohio firefighters are.
Off topic, but apropos the teachers' union and the Viagra paragraph of the contract; how many male teachers are there in Wisconsin?
but the constitution is not merely what the S.C. says it is. It exists independantly of any american institution.
And it is fair to wonder, why do you really think?
"That's why I chose engineering. Every other subject is just bullshit."
No, medicine isn't, especially surgery. Vascular surgery is the toughest and has almost broken my heart a couple of times.
Denton Cooley, one of the greatest, and funniest, heart surgeons of all time was asked why he thought general (GI) surgery was easier than vascular surgery.
His answer ?
"Shit doesn't clot."
Not even engineering has that remorseless a standard hanging over it.
I've done both and I know. Wind tunnels were created so aeronautical engineers can make mistakes without killing anybody.
Please don't express an opinion on this case. You never know when a Supreme might drop dead, and if you were tapped as a replacement it would be a shame to have to recuse yourself.
SCOTUS follows the election returns and 2010 was a refudiation of Obamacare
Why do you choose to imagine this particular dialogue? Wouldn't you be more effective as a teacher if you actually held a dialogue with them and played the cards that fall on the table?
You really are a head-gamer, and I don't mean that as a compliment.
Hey, kids: 5-4 against.
Study the players, the politics, the battlefield. Approach the "law" as a general guideline, a very flexible set of living rules.
speaking of "imagined dialogue"
Charlie Sheen show is live on ustream.tv right now!
he's all poetic
"napalm poet"
Sheen looks really good. Looks sober and very awake. He's extremely lucid.
He's going through his shit list right now.
WTF? Is it over? It's only :15 after... and he started five minutes late...
It was billed as one hour show!
"WTF? Is it over? It's only :15 after... and he started five minutes late...
It was billed as one hour show!"
There's a four to one ratio associated w/ being on speed. So, it's all good.
shiloh - the more you spam the less Althoues will notice you. Lie low and post infrequently.
No cafe tonight? Wondering if you and Meade will document the tractorcade this Saturday at the Capitol.
I think a good thing to look at is via what avenue is the individual mandate being met. If the individual buys insurance that is only sold in Texas, for example, and only uses it in Texas then how can the commerce clause be enforced? It can only regulate INTERSTATE commerce and not INTRASTATE commerce.
As insurers are not able to sell across state lines and the state co-ops/pools are unique, it would seem the commerce clause cannot be used to enforce the individual mandate. If your citizens are (mostly) all using state specific insurance how can we deem the individual mandate constitutional? The laws and regulations regarding the sale of health insurance would need to be changed to facilitate national policies.
What could really help with this debate is Montana House Bill No. 246 which exempts the state from Federal gun regulations if firearms and accessories are manufactured, sold and stay in Montana. If the bill becomes law it will potentially set up a date with the U.S. Supreme Court. Several other states also have legislation on the books for exempting themselves out of the commerce clause on specific issues. Much to play out in the courts over the next few years that will greatly determine just how much federalism really exists in this country. Interesting times we are living in!
OT
Walker to Dems: Let's Make a Deal
40-No Love. Game. Set. Match. Onions..'scuse unions.
bactorib
Exactly how you will be eviscerated, Gov..
This woman goes to the hospital to have her excessively large p***y lips removed. She tells the doctor that doesn't want any of her family members or friends to know about such a private matter.
When she wakes up she finds three red roses by her bed. She calls the doctor and asks about them. "One rose is from me," the doctor says, "as I'm sorry that you had to go through all of this by yourself. The second rose is from the nurse, as a woman she understands how painful this must have been for you. And the third rose is from a patient in our burn unit ... he thanks you for his new ears."
Peter
Althouse, I have a strange new respect for you. You've got mad professorial skills. Way to go!
ironrailsironweights
When she wakes up she finds three red roses by her bed. She calls the doctor and asks about them. "One rose is from me," the doctor says, "as I'm sorry that you had to go through all of this by yourself. The second rose is from the nurse, as a woman she understands how painful this must have been for you. And the third rose is from a patient in our burn unit ... he thanks you for his new ears."
Peter
Your name OR the second punch line?
@ Yorke
That 50 bucks an offer?
The imagined dialogue never played out. I guess no one else cared, and I couldn't ask for fear of being revealed!
Just a thought....
If individual decision making affects interstate commerce ....
Does not any State regulatory regime, such as licensure, certification, authorization of business, especially insurance companies affect interstate commerce?
It would seem if individual decision making affects interstate commerce, any act or any decision by any actor affects interstate commerce. Therefore states have no capacity for any regulation, let alone the right to regulate the health insurance industry.
Sorry, also meant to say that this broad interpretation of what affects interstate commerce means that the power of the US Congress to act must necessarily be unlimited.
Again, just a thought.
Beev -- All that has been discussed ad nauseum in a whole like of cases. Some make sense. Some are just absurd. You also need to look into what's called the Dormant Commerce Clause.
But, basically, short answer: it's all been covered.
Thanks for nice posting and interesting details shared in recently post. great idea for class and fantastic dialogue ...
Romantisch Hotel Brugge
Slothrop bragged, "That's why I chose engineering. Every other subject is just bullshit."
I'm an engineer, and now I'm a lawyer. Engineers ignore little details that don't affect their answers, and often claim that there is a right answer. However, when designing something, which is what engineers do, you have to use math that approximates reality to a greater or lesser degree to balance requirements that are often contradictory to arrive at a solution.
In law, you have to deal more directly with contradictory requirements, and add in bias and bigotry and intellectual obfuscation. Lawyering is the art of convincing people what is right. It has little to do with facts.
So in engineering and lawyering, you have to ignore details that are either too hard to determine or fluctuate too much and get to a solution that works well enough to get the job done.
"Once you can call inactivity a form of activity, you'll believe anything."
And you will also finally love Big Brother, one way or another.
The issues of engineering (applied science) vs. law remind me of something I realized recently. It's my understanding that in a trial if one side makes an assertion that goes unchallenged by the other, the assertion is then considered factual (you lawyers will no doubt correct me on this, as I assume I'm wrong in some way). This explains why at least some people insist I must disprove that humans cause global warming. Science is exactly the opposite. I need not contest such an assertion in any way. The default is you are wrong until you can prove you are correct. And some of us have fairly militant and harsh standards about what we consider scientifically-demonstrated proof (we learn this as a defense mechanism, so we don't make fools of ourselves in front of our colleagues).
CLASS: Yes, and... does it?
ALTHOUSE: We'll have to hear the answer from the Supreme Court.
A court is the worst place to get a knowledgeable decision about anything; every time there's a split decision (along party lines of course), some of the government lawyers are wrong by definition: a 5-4 decision means that at least 4 of the 9 are wrong, and why base your opinion on the ideas of people who're wrong so often?
Since Congress (and soon SCOTUS) have determined that inactivity is now activity, I believe the dead can now rightfully vote, as well as run for office.
Skyler said...
So in engineering and lawyering, you have to ignore details that are either too hard to determine or fluctuate too much and get to a solution that works well enough to get the job done.
The big difference is that in engineering, there is an objective reality by which your work is judged. It either works, or it doesn't, and all the fancy arguments and theories in the world can't change that. You can fudge around the edges a little, where your margin of safety might not be as big as you claim, and certainly many designs that work are sub-optimal. But still, that reality is out there.
What frustrates many non-lawyers is that we believe that the Constitution should be an objective reality. Of course there are parts that are subjective. A prohibition against 'unreasonable' searches requires a subjective assessment of what is unreasonable. And I'm sure there is a bit of a fuzzy line around exactly what constitutes regulation of interstate commerce. But the current case-law is so far removed from that fuzzy line that any consideration of the intended meaning of the Constitution is lost. Now it's just arguments about precedents based on theories of interpretation that were only ever presented as a means of avoiding the limitations on government power that was the very basis of the Constitution in the first place.
Thanks, Paul.
@Pogo
The dead will no longer be referred to as such. Henceforth they are "perfectly active".
FWIW, I think the individual mandate would have stuck as a tax. As it is, I think it is dead. Oh wait, does that make it active again?
"Since Congress (and soon SCOTUS) have determined that inactivity is now activity, I believe the dead can now rightfully vote, as well as run for office."
Cool! Can we nominate Jefferson again?
Obamacare: Night of the Living Dead.
Or how about Monroe?
Professor Althouse-
Your technique seems to be a great way to teach future lawyers, since their job will be to make the best possible argument for whichever side they represent.
Is any thought ever given to the best way to teach future judges, whose job will be to determine what the Constitution actually means, regardless of good the lawyers are for one side or the other?
Maybe that's part of the problem with this country. Judges are mostly former lawyers whose education is based not on figuring out what is right, but figuring out how to use the law to reach whatever conclusion they want.
Is any thought ever given to the best way to teach future judges, whose job will be to determine what the Constitution actually means, regardless of good the lawyers are for one side or the other?
I agree. Per the original meaning of the Constitution, our national defense was supposed to be provided by the militia, and standing armies (those which lasted more than two years) were prohibited. But I've lived my whole militia life (17 to 45) without ever being called up for even one drill in the downtown square, even though my musket has been at the ready all this time.
The US Army being unconstitutional, it must be abolished. (I guess a skeletal corps could be kept for the next time we are attacked, for rapid training purposes. But with all able-bodied men trained to arms, the Army training should be rapid indeed.) Any foreign intrigues must be carried out through our Navy and its Marine Corps.
What frustrates many non-lawyers is that we believe that the Constitution should be an objective reality.
Exactly, IIB. I've had this discussion many times with my professor friends. The Constitution is mostly very accessible language and easily understood by even (or especially!) non-lawyers. It's particularly frustrating that the obfuscation is completely unnecessary: the Constitution has a built in process for amendment. If you don't like what the plain language of the Constitution says, work to change it. But don't tell me my Constitutional rights depend on what the definition of "is" is or that the Constitution says what it clearly doesn't (or vice-versa).
former law student said...
I agree. Per the original meaning of the Constitution, our national defense was supposed to be provided by the militia, and standing armies (those which lasted more than two years) were prohibited.
You seem to be confusing armies and and appropriations. But if that was the original meaning, then we would have to either live with it, or amend the Constitution. I'm sure that there are plenty of other things that I think are good uses of the federal government that would require constitutional amendments. We either amend or do without.
But don't tell me my Constitutional rights depend on what the definition of "is" is or that the Constitution says what it clearly doesn't (or vice-versa)
let's look at the Copyright Clause:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
At the time of the Framers, copyrights lasted for fourteen years. If the author still lived, he could extend his copyright for another 14 years.
But thanks to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, authors' copyrights now last 70 years longer than they do. And corporate copyrights -- like Mickey Mouse -- now last 90 years after they were first created. And the Supreme Court found this to be constitutional, as not violating the "limited Times" provision.
Who wants to bet that copyright terms will never be extended again, further turning the "limited Times" provision into a mockery?
fls-
I don't know if at the time the Constitution was adopted if your exclusive rights involved in copyrights were understood to transfer to your heirs when you died. If so then I would think that would be included in the understanding of the meaning of copyrights referred to in the Constitution. If not, then such copyright laws are unconstitutional, and we would either need to change them to be within the limits of the constitution, or we amend the constitution.
Any more examples you want to bring up? Are you mentioning these because you think they somehow argue against my position, or are you agreeing with me and just listing some things that you are happy to see changed?
Thanks for confirming my point, fls. SCOTUS has made a mockery of the plain terms of the Constitution by failing to stand up to Congressional and Executive overreach.
Are you mentioning these because you think they somehow argue against my position, or are you agreeing with me and just listing some things that you are happy to see changed?
Reverting to the original meaning would radically alter the status quo. Practically speaking, we could never unwind everything that has built up over two centuries -- too many people' oxen would be gored to make it possible.
Yes, reverting would radically alter the status quo. And I don't believe that there is the political will to do this.
But at the very least we could stop the headlong dash away from original meaning. And maybe we could pass some constitutional amendments giving the government some of the powers that the supreme court has claimed they already have, in order to better align the Constitution with the case-law.
A better question might be---shall the Congress have the final word on regulating commerce (as the US-Con seems to suggest), OR shall a quasii-aristocratic panel of 9 black robes make the decision for millions. (Hint: Jefferson and FDR favored the former policy)
If FDR was for it, then I'm probably against it.
You can certainly argue that Marbury v. Madison was judicial overreach. I'd be happy to see a constitutional amendment giving the judiciary that power as a check on Congress' power.
Am I right in my guess that the reason you didn't actually answer the (imaginary) student's question is that you were trying to make the point that everyone who is subject to this law is in the same position as the student--in the sense of having to guess, with potentially dire consequences, what the Supreme Court may decide to do at some unpredictable time in the future?
Post a Comment