FDR Didn't Envision Social Security As It Is Now

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The Constitution provides for national defense. It does not provide for building an empire and policing the world.

Not to some.

They think policing the world is in the constitution.

We would only need half the military to defend this country if that.

But try and convince the right wing loons that fact. Those people think Smith & Wesson wrote a Constitution just for them. They love to take my taxes and spend it on some school in Iraq. Somehow that has become a way to defend our country!

[CuteOldGuy]

Some people think there are lots of things in the Constitution that aren't there. Some of them have even been on the Supreme Court. That doesn't change what the document really says.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Some people think there are lots of things in the Constitution that aren't there. Some of them have even been on the Supreme Court. That doesn't change what the document really says.

You been lying about being a lawyer, right?

Just one quick example about figuring out what the Constitution "really says" and the reality of figuring out what it "really means":

The 4th Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures." That is all the Constitution says about it. Now, apply that word to the hundreds of thousands of searches and seizures that occur in this country every year. Some in houses, some in cars, some on the street, some in office buildings, some in elevators, some on airplanes, some in prisons, some in state capitals, some in massage parlors, some in police statons and on and on and on and on.

What does "unreasonable" mean and how is that decided? I await your wisdom.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by timpage

What does "unreasonable" mean and how is that decided? I await your wisdom.

It means the government can not search my shit! LOL

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by timpage

What does "unreasonable" mean and how is that decided? I await your wisdom.

That's a pretty easy one to answer: Not guided by or based on good sense. If you don't know what "good sense" means, your probably a great candidate for any elected official or enforcement agency.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

That's a pretty easy one to answer: Not guided by or based on good sense. If you don't know what "good sense" means, your probably a great candidate for any elected official or enforcement agency.

Sure, you, I and Timpage know that. But try explaining that to COG.

[CJ7]

knock knock

door opens

LAPD Mr Jones .. can we search your home

Mr Jones ... do you have a warrant

LAPD ... No

Mr Jones ... no you cant. Come back when you have a warrant


LAPD to DA ... we need a warrant to search Mr Jones house

DA ... can you give me probable cause

LAPD .. No

DA ... No, no warrant.


evidence obtained without permission to search or without a warrant cant be used in a court of law

[CuteOldGuy]

A search warrant based on probable cause signed by a judge. That what it has meant for decades. Until the Patriot Act, which now means a search is only unreasonable if the police have to take overtime pay to conduct it. Or something like that.

You'd be surprised how many very smart lawyers thing the SCOTUS can be full of shit at times. Go to Barnes and Noble, you will find both right and left leaning lawyers writing books about how the Court gets things wrong.

Justices are no longer brilliant legal minds. They are donors or friends of donors who don't have anything in their past the other side can rail about in the hearings. Don't kid yourself that they know more than the average lawyer. They don't. They just had better connections.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

A search warrant based on probable cause signed by a judge. That what it has meant for decades. Until the Patriot Act, which now means a search is only unreasonable if the police have to take overtime pay to conduct it. Or something like that.

You'd be surprised how many very smart lawyers thing the SCOTUS can be full of shit at times. Go to Barnes and Noble, you will find both right and left leaning lawyers writing books about how the Court gets things wrong.

Justices are no longer brilliant legal minds. They are donors or friends of donors who don't have anything in their past the other side can rail about in the hearings. Don't kid yourself that they know more than the average lawyer. They don't. They just had better connections.

There are thousands of legal opinions out there from courts of appeal invalidating searches and seizures done pursuant to search warrants signed by judges based on the argument that the searches ended up being unreasonable per the Fourth Amendment. You're missing my point.
It's frequently simply not possible for the average person to read the Constitution and say an unreasonable search and seizure means X, Y or Z. It means what the SCOTUS says it means. You may not like it but there it is.

So, when you say: social security is not constitutional because the constitution doesn't say anything about social security, it is a flawed argument. The Constitution doesn't say anything about advising criminals of their Miranda rights either....but the SCOTUS says that's what is required in order to ensure that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination has meaning to those that it is designed to protect.

This idea that we are all qualified to say what is or is not constitutional is absurd. We're not. That's not the way the system works, sorry.

[CuteOldGuy]

The Constitution was written for us. It was written to empower people, not government. I can say whatever I want to say about the Constitution, and what I believe it means. Yes, SCOTUS is going to win every argument, but that does not mean they are right. To take your philosophy, we should have stopped at Plessy v. Ferguson. Where would that have gotten us?

The Constitution does not mention ANYTHING about providing for the elderly. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments gives those powers NOT SPECIFICALLY granted to the federal government, to the states or to the people. Therefore, Social Security is NOT constitutional, regardless of what the agenda-driven justices on the Court say. Social Security may be a terrific idea, a wonderful idea, but it is not within the purview of the federal government.

SCOTUS has been driven more by politics than law for over 100 years. Maybe longer. They spend more time trying to figure ways around the Constitution than interpreting it. They are a joke. Sorry, but that's a fact. Anymore, the Court's brilliance is decided by whether there are 5 liberal or 5 conservative justices present. Their legal expertise is of no factor. The only thing that matters is whether they will be a reliable liberal vote, or conservative vote, depending on who the President is. And when the Senate is held by one party, and the President is of the other party, we get imbeciles like Justices Souter and Kennedy. And others. I'd hate to leave out other imbeciles, but there is only so much bandwidth.

So don't treat the Court like they are some Temple to Justice. They're just regular Washington slobs trying to get as many perks as they can, like everyone else in Washington.

[timpage]

I don't need a lecture from you about the effects of politics and ideology on the SCOTUS, I am well aware.

Nor do I begrudge you your right to opine regarding whether you agree or disagree with a particular decision of the court.

Now...go read the goddamn opinions I posted up and learn something about how the SCOTUS reasoned in finding that there is a basis in the Constitution for the establishment of social security.

[CuteOldGuy]

Told you already. I read them. Learn to read yourself.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The Constitution was written for us. It was written to empower people, not government. I can say whatever I want to say about the Constitution, and what I believe it means. Yes, SCOTUS is going to win every argument, but that does not mean they are right. To take your philosophy, we should have stopped at Plessy v. Ferguson. Where would that have gotten us?

The Constitution does not mention ANYTHING about providing for the elderly. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments gives those powers NOT SPECIFICALLY granted to the federal government, to the states or to the people. Therefore, Social Security is NOT constitutional, regardless of what the agenda-driven justices on the Court say. Social Security may be a terrific idea, a wonderful idea, but it is not within the purview of the federal government.

SCOTUS has been driven more by politics than law for over 100 years. Maybe longer. They spend more time trying to figure ways around the Constitution than interpreting it. They are a joke. Sorry, but that's a fact. Anymore, the Court's brilliance is decided by whether there are 5 liberal or 5 conservative justices present. Their legal expertise is of no factor. The only thing that matters is whether they will be a reliable liberal vote, or conservative vote, depending on who the President is. And when the Senate is held by one party, and the President is of the other party, we get imbeciles like Justices Souter and Kennedy. And others. I'd hate to leave out other imbeciles, but there is only so much bandwidth.

So don't treat the Court like they are some Temple to Justice. They're just regular Washington slobs trying to get as many perks as they can, like everyone else in Washington.

There may be some federal agencies that are a good idea but not constitutional. The one that comes to mind is the EPA. There's a logical argument to be made that pollution has to be controlled at the federal level. The problem is that instead of amending the Constitution to allow for expanding government authority in a certain area SCOTUS just makes up some reason to allow for the expansion. The whole idea that the Constitution is a living document is nonsense. If SCOTUS doesn't rule according to original intent they're not upholding their oathe of office.

One of the worst instances of judicial activism was the Roe v Wade decision. That's when the court invented the so called "right to privacy" that gave constitional protection to abortion. If the American people felt that strongly about "a woman's right to choose" then we should have amended the Constitution.

If the American people want socialized medicine then we should amend the Constitution instead of pretending the interstate commerce clause gives the government the right to force you to buy health insurance.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

If the American people felt that strongly about "a woman's right to choose" then we should have amended the Constitution.

What good would that do? There are still some people (i'm talkin' 'bout you, COG) who go around claiming the 16th amendment to the constitution is....wait for it....unconstitutional.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by timpage

I don't need a lecture from you about the effects of politics and ideology on the SCOTUS, I am well aware.

He had to lecture you....it was the only way he could respond while totally ignoring the point you were actually making.