come on "constructionists"

[3RA1N1AC]

er... in my previous post, wherever the term "constructionist" appears, "strict" should go directly before it. i'm ignorant. or forgetful. that it isn't really abbreviationable to just "constructionist" when there's an opposite type, the "liberal constructionist." i've rarely heard that term, though. i think in political discussion "judicial activist" is preferred?

oh wait no, i was just playing along with the precedent already set by the thread's title and by jpaul's question... yeah, that's it...

[JPaul]

The concept of "strict constructionist" seems a bit strange to me. If as I understand it they are people who read the US constitution and take it's literal English meaning. I say this for 3 reasons.

1, Surely you would have to consider any notes, discussions, relevant historical documents which relate to it. In order to give you a context for what the signatories intended.

2, One would also have to look at the socio-economic conditions at the time to understand what was truly intended. I think the right to bear arms thing is relevant here. They perhaps needed them to protect the newly founded country. However does that relate to today.

3, Wouldn't it be appropriate to also look at how it impacts today. e.g. They did not specifically mention things like electronic telecommunications. However the principals in the constitution should be applied to them.

I think the same about people who literally translate things like The Bible. Some of it is parables chap, it's the lesson that's important, not the narrative.

That's my 2p ($13) worth.

[j2k4]

so that's your answer then Rush.

Deflect from the debate by trying to make it sound as if there was a "liberal witch hunt" going on. The 4th is of little importance to you it appears

As to the actual issue, you can bet that Schumer, Pelosi and Reid et.al., will institute a proper investigation, and if Bush's "over-step" warrants impeachment, you'll get your wish, won't you?

I was unaware that Arlen specter, Dick Lugar, Lindsey Graham et al were "foaming democrats" as they are calling for the investigations as much as any democrat. try to spin it into a partisan issue if you wish, but it would be just that....spin.

No spin-

The difference will be that if, as and/or when any investigation occurs, Specter, Lugar and Graham, as well as any other like-minded Republicans, will be satisfied with the result (which I predict will be a small thing), whereas the Democrats will continue to piss and moan that the "American People" demand no less than impeachment, and any decent human being would resign the Presidency (never mind that Bush has already been assigned sub-human status by your own self as well as the Dems).

It's not spin, vid, it's a well-informed read on the situation.

[clocker]

The difference will be that if, as and/or when any investigation occurs, Specter, Lugar and Graham, as well as any other like-minded Republicans, will be satisfied with the result (which I predict will be a small thing), whereas the Democrats will continue to piss and moan that the "American People" demand no less than impeachment, and any decent human being would resign the Presidency (never mind that Bush has already been assigned sub-human status by your own self as well as the Dems).

It's not spin, vid, it's a well-informed read on the situation.

Ah...got it.
So you predict the Dems (foamy mouthed and minty fresh) will act just like the Repubs after Clinton was cleared.
That "forgive and forget" attitude ya'll are so famous for, eh?

Actually, you're probably right.
Soon they'll be feasting on Abramhoff and Delay and the gore will cover any minor Constitutional abuses.

[j2k4]

That "forgive and forget" attitude ya'll are so famous for, eh?

Are You saying the Dems Practice this?

Actually, you're probably right.
Soon they'll be feasting on Abramhoff and Delay and the gore will cover any minor Constitutional abuses.

Here's another prediction:

As the Abramoff saga plays out, the Democrats will endeavor to downplay the guilt of any Democrats he had on the hook, at least relative to the Republicans, and forward the notion that Democrats cannot properly be considered the targets of any investigation.

Watch and see...

BTW-vid:

I haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh in about six years.

Any mutually-held views are a result of his monitoring my output in this forum.

[vidcc]

Kev.

All I am after your view re. the 4th. Your answer seems to be "the 4th doesn't really matter".
Your post was high on froth and low on substance.... A typical Rush type rant, hence my comments.

I believe Bush has broken the 4th but I haven't foamed or called for impeachment and didn't suggested anything in that direction in the opening or following posts. I don't think there was a need to bypass the courts and would like to hear genuine justification as to why he did. There is nothing in the court system that would have hindered wiretapping of terrorists.

I am after a "constructionist" constitutional opinion and why that opinion is held so that we can debate that...... not a party pie fight.

I look forward to you giving one once the froth has dried.

[j2k4]

Do you believe us to be on a genuine "war" footing, vid?

I do.

It is not so comprehensive a circumstance as to require rationing, black-outs, mandatory recycling, victory gardens and industrial-plant conversion, but a nod toward intelligence-gathering capability?

I'm all for that.

I mean, they're not onto Busyman, yet; what have you and I to fear?

Never mind the 4th.

Remember the discussions we had about stateside detention during WWII?

We could be doing that, you know?

We could close the borders down, but I seem to remember you having a problem with that, too.

Granting that we are constantly barraged with anecdotes about sieve-like airport security, and, as I've already noted, the border situation is a joke, but phone taps are cheap, too; they don't cost poor people a thing.

[jesus' general]

Never mind the 4th.

Absolutely right. I think the best way to deal with this situation can be summed up by the ancient British nursery rhyme "Oh Hokey Cokey Cokey".

"You put your 4th amendment in
You take your 4th amendment out
In, out, in, out, shake it all about!"

Say what you like about the Brits, bad teeth, bad food and worse weather, but when it comes to politics they're way ahead of their time! They don't even have a constitution, kickass!!

Anyway, can you imagine how many lives would be put at risk if GW had to get a warrant after the phone-tapping had taken place? Typical libs, always playing fast and loose with the lives of ordinary working Americans.

I mean, they're not onto Busyman, yet; what have you and I to fear?

Damn right. As long as you're not a member of Al-Qaida, the Vegan Community Project, Greenpeace, the Catholic Workers group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or the American Indian Movement, theres no reason to be concerned!

Nothing to see here!

Or here!

Hehe, I never liked those veggy eating, tree-hugging, working Catholic, animal loving brown people anyway!

heterosexually yours,

JG

[thewizeard]

Hehe, I never liked those veggy eating, tree-hugging, working Catholic, animal loving brown people anyway!

heterosexually yours,

JG

Me neither, the last tree I hugged, an oak, was so rough and nobbly..

[vidcc]

Ok kev you have basically trotted out this "we are at war so we need to compromise" spin. A trade off of civil rights for security

The implication that what Bush did was necessary for national security. But it's not a trade off at all. Everything Bush did, as he's described it ... tapping phone calls "from Al Qaeda" ....could have been done through FISA, since it's doubtful that the 4 or 5 cases FISA turned down, compared to the 19,000 (give or take) it approved, involved phone calls from Al Qaeda.

There is no trade off. There is no amount of security that would have been traded off had Bush followed the law. All the wiretaps needed would have been granted and we'd have had all the security that resulted from them.

Remember the discussions we had about stateside detention during WWII?

We could be doing that, you know?

We could close the borders down, but I seem to remember you having a problem with that, too.

Oh so because something esle was done before that excuses this? Besides, what kind of arguement or defence is that...
Bush: "well we could have done something worse you honour, at least we haven't rounded up all arabs and put them in consentration camps"
Alito: "Good point snookums, and valid enough to throw any "lesser...and cheaper" violations out...case dismissed... now can you find out what everyone is saying about me"
As to the border comment, go back and check your memory files and stop attributing the views of others to me.


I give you a do over.