51–60 of 85 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The laws and procedures the court is undoing here were all adopted through the defined legislative process, and could have been adjusted through the defined legislative process if voters’ representatives wanted that done. These court rulings will just limit Congress’s power to execute the will of the voters.
It is far more important to operate within Constitutional limits than to execute the will of the voters. We shouldn't allow the tyranny of the majority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The laws and procedures the court is undoing here were all adopted through the defined legislative process, and could have been adjusted through the defined legislative process if voters’ representatives wanted that done. These court rulings will just limit Congress’s power to execute the will of the voters.
It is far more important to operate within Constitutional limits than to execute the will of the voters. We shouldn't allow the tyranny of the majority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is far more important to operate within Constitutional limits than to execute the will of the voters. We shouldn't allow the tyranny of the majority.
So you propose tyranny of the minority instead?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you propose tyranny of the minority instead?
I propose following the Constitution strictly as written with a very narrow interpretation. And if some people think the federal government needs more power then they are welcome to propose an amendment.
We already do, within the framework set forth by the Constitution
> And if some people think the federal government needs more power then they are welcome to propose an amendment.
That's been done, too.
Seems like you're happy with things and maybe you just enjoy complaining?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I propose following the Constitution strictly as written with a very narrow interpretation. And if some people think the federal government needs more power then they are welcome to propose an amendment.
> I propose following the Constitution strictly as written with a very narrow interpretation. We already do, within the framework set forth by the Constitution > And if some people think the federal government needs more power then they are welcome to propose an amendment. That's been done, too. Seems like you're happy with things and maybe you just enjoy complaining?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think the framers went to all that trouble to create this complex process for making laws between two houses of the legislature and the signature of the president, but thought it would be totally cool for unelected bureaucrats in some executive branch agency to do the same thing? Arguments about the “current scale of the US” obviously don’t tell you what the Constitution means. And even on its own terms that argu…
s/tasked with running/tasked with coordinating states and federal matters/ I think nothing about the US framers - not my country. I simply answered the question posed without delving into the merits of any specific position. On the matter of stock exchanges and securities Congress did lawfully choose to regulate and bind public companies to declare honest and true infomation to the public yada yada .. that's within t…
This Supreme Court is, and always has been, political. The idea of the "textualist" or "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution as a philosophy is just propaganda invented in the 1980s shortly after the Federalist Society was founded. This court seems determined to overturn Chevron [1], which is the basis for deference given to administrative bodies empowered by Congress, the so-called "administrative state"…
[flagged]
This feels like a disingenuous interpretation rooted in some pretty strong biases.
The article writes in fear that the Supreme Court may decide that something the government is doing is unconstitutional without providing anything else. It neither discusses the case from a legal perspective nor provides alternatives nor shows any level of deep knowledge or access to someone with such.