Jose Padilla Will Be Freed

[epepke]

The 10th Amendment grants rights to the states that aren't specifically designated to the Federal gov't. Are you saying that, say, the state of Georgia could hold prisoners in Gitmo but not the Feds?

At one point in history, the answer would have been "yes." But we had a civil war over similar issues and then got a 14th Amendment.

 

[ssibal]

Nice way to pull stuff out of context.

From the very same paper:

It is clear that Hamilton would not approve of the "interpretation" that has been going on of late. And it's clear that he believed in "inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution" and "bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments" and should "regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws." You took one paragraph where he's saying nothing more than the judges should "ascertain the meaning" of the Constitution (which does NOT mean "interpret" it), and ascertain the meaning of the law, and if the two are in contradiction, they must find the law invalid. The paragraphs I quoted make that crystal clear.

You completely miss the point. Hamilton knows judges will have to determine what the Constitution says. It is not clear cut like you claim. The fact that you even cited the Federalist papers shows the Constitution is not as simple and straightforward as you would like us to believe. The fact that they even exist shows that the Constitution is partly ambiguous......open to interpretation.

 

[shanek]

You completely miss the point. Hamilton knows judges will have to determine what the Constitution says.

That is NOT the same thing as "interpreting" it.

It is not clear cut like you claim.

Bull$#!7. It says, for example, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." It doesn't say anything about "unless there's a compelling national interest." That is an "interpretation" that Hamilton, as evidenced by the quoted passages, would almost certainly NOT have approved of. In fact, he specifically said the reason for giving judges life terms was to avoid just this sort of thing.

The fact that you even cited the Federalist papers shows the Constitution is not as simple and straightforward as you would like us to believe. The fact that they even exist shows that the Constitution is partly ambiguous......open to interpretation.

That is just about the worst argument I've ever heard. Do you REALLY believe this crap or do you just pull it out of your @$$ because you've got nothing else?

 

[ssibal]

That is NOT the same thing as "interpreting" it.

No?

Main Entry: in·ter·pret
Pronunciation: in-'t&r-pr&t, -p&t
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French interpreter, from Latin interpretari, from interpret-, interpres agent, negotiator, interpreter
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms

Bull$#!7. It says, for example, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." It doesn't say anything about "unless there's a compelling national interest." That is an "interpretation" that Hamilton, as evidenced by the quoted passages, would almost certainly NOT have approved of. In fact, he specifically said the reason for giving judges life terms was to avoid just this sort of thing.

As evidenced nothing, in reality you do not know you are merely putting words in his mouth.

That is just about the worst argument I've ever heard. Do you REALLY believe this crap or do you just pull it out of your @$$ because you've got nothing else?

Right, the Constitution is so clear that you have to reference something else (i.e. the Federalist papers) to show that it is so clear.... Why were the Federalist papers written if the Constitution was so clear? Why the need to write them to try to convince the public if the Constitution itself was clear enough?

 

[shanek]

No?

No, not in the way we've been using it. According to the dictionary definition you just cited, what the Supreme Court has been doing doesn't even fit the definition of "interpret;" it's just, I dunno, making stuff up I guess. How, under the definition you cited, does allowing restrictions on free speech due to "compelling national interest" count as interpretation?

As evidenced nothing, in reality you do not know you are merely putting words in his mouth.

No, I quoted his exact words. And I didn't take them out of context like you did.

Right, the Constitution is so clear that you have to reference something else (i.e. the Federalist papers) to show that it is so clear....

Yes, you have to resort to such things with liars and others who distort the truth.

Why were the Federalist papers written if the Constitution was so clear?

Because it needed to be debated. Just because its meaning is clear doesn't mean it's not debatable.

 

[Zero]

You guys are being silly. No one cares what Hamilton would have done, and no one should.

 

[ssibal]

No, not in the way we've been using it. According to the dictionary definition you just cited, what the Supreme Court has been doing doesn't even fit the definition of "interpret;" it's just, I dunno, making stuff up I guess. How, under the definition you cited, does allowing restrictions on free speech due to "compelling national interest" count as interpretation?

How is that any different than not allowing the press into top secret government meetings or not allowing average citizens to protest inside the White House? Or do you think these things are unconstitutional as well?

No, I quoted his exact words. And I didn't take them out of context like you did.

You quoted his words, which is irrelevant to what is going on today (i.e. your claim that he would have disapproved of the interpretation). You have no way of knowing that, thus are putting words in his mouth. You claiming I took them out of context is not true. He said what he said, that the courts have to interpret. And the passages you quoted do not contradict that. He wants adherence to the Constitution, but the court has to first determine what the Constitution means so they may adhere to it.

Yes, you have to resort to such things with liars and others who distort the truth.

Maybe "the truth" is not as obvious as you think.

Because it needed to be debated. Just because its meaning is clear doesn't mean it's not debatable.

It is one thing to debate, it is another to need to explain. The Federalist papers read more like explanations of an ambiguous Constitution than a debate of Constitution vs something else.

 

[shanek]

How is that any different than not allowing the press into top secret government meetings or not allowing average citizens to protest inside the White House? Or do you think these things are unconstitutional as well?

You're being disingenuous again. Freedom of speech does not mean the government must provide the means for the speech. It just means that it shouldn't get in the way of people doing it on their own.

You quoted his words, which is irrelevant to what is going on today (i.e. your claim that he would have disapproved of the interpretation). You have no way of knowing that, thus are putting words in his mouth.

You're just weaseling. It is clear that he was concerned about judges doing exactly the same sort of thing that they are now, and that is why he supported life terms for judges as a solution.

You claiming I took them out of context is not true. He said what he said, that the courts have to interpret.

No, he didn't. He didn't say anything of the kind. He said that the courts have to determine the meaning of the Constitution, which is different from the kind of interpretation we're talking about.