FDR Didn't Envision Social Security As It Is Now

Although it might be a simplified thought, isn't what, and what is not Constitutional defined by what any 5 Supreme Court Justices can agree on at one time.

I am well aware that cases have to be brought before the Court, but as an example, if a ruling such as Roe v Wade was brought up again, and by some quirk made it all the way to the SCOTUS, and the majority voted against abortion, would not that then become the law, regardless of how a previous Court had ruled.

That is just a hypothetical to illustrate the question.

Doove, I too think that is hillarious when some shit brain says that something that is actually in the Constitution is 'Unconstitutional'. Clueless

Although it might be a simplified thought, isn't what, and what is not Constitutional defined by what any 5 Supreme Court Justices can agree on at one time.

I am well aware that cases have to be brought before the Court, but as an example, if a ruling such as Roe v Wade was brought up again, and by some quirk made it all the way to the SCOTUS, and the majority voted against abortion, would not that then become the law, regardless of how a previous Court had ruled.

That is just a hypothetical to illustrate the question.

Doove, I too think that is hillarious when some shit brain says that something that is actually in the Constitution is 'Unconstitutional'. Clueless Originally Posted by Jackie S

+1

The Constitution changes to mean wtf the people at that time want it to mean.

If it is ok to own slaves, you can find it in the Constitution, if not, you can find that too.

While the Constitution is not a joke, there are a bunch of jokers that think they know more about the Constitution than they actually do. They are stuck in some time warp where everything they agree with is Constitutional and everything they do not agree with isn't.

We see wtf we wanna see in that there document.

I have never said the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional. I have said it should be repealed. God, you people and your strawmen. I'm glad you have them, so at least you can look smart to yourselves.

WTF, words mean things. The Founders had definite meanings in mind when they wrote the Constitution. If the meanings of the words change over time, it does not mean the Constitution changes. The words must be read in the context and with the meaning with which they were written, otherwise the Constitution can mean anything to anyone. I that case, it essentially means nothing, and there are no restraints on government, which is kind of where we are now with that "Living Constitution" bullshit.

WTF, words mean things. The Founders had definite meanings in mind when they wrote the Constitution. If the meanings of the words change over time, it does not mean the Constitution changes. The words must be read in the context and with the meaning with which they were written, otherwise the Constitution can mean anything to anyone. I that case, it essentially means nothing, and there are no restraints on government, which is kind of where we are now with that "Living Constitution" bullshit. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You are finally starting to get it COG.

Nobody can go back and ask the context or real meaning of the words.
We all try and figure it out for what best fits our world view. So yea , I'm not one that puts a huge amount of stock in the Constitution. I would have been a horrible nationalist Nazi. I question a whole lot of BS.

Fortunately, we can find out what the Founders meant when they wrote the Constitution. There is a huge record. Folks like you just want to ignore it, because when it conflicts with what you want government to do, it gets in the way. So you work your way around it, and that is where the SCOTUS has brought us to today. No real constitution, and no real limits on government. Hence, no freedom.

You are finally starting to get it COG.

Nobody can go back and ask the context or real meaning of the words.
We all try and figure it out for what best fits our world view. So yea , I'm not one that puts a huge amount of stock in the Constitution. I would have been a horrible nationalist Nazi. I question a whole lot of BS. Originally Posted by WTF

Constitutional scholars do "go back and ask the context or real meaning of the words" of the Constitution. That's SCOTUS's job. They have the Federalist Papers and other writings of the founders that help them to understand what the original intent was.

The Constitution was written in plain English with the intention of being easy to understand. We're not dealing with Egyptian hieroglyphics. Liberals that wish the Constitution did not exist, pretend that it's impossible to understand so that they have an excuse to ignore it or interpret it in ways that are obviously contrary to original intent.

PS
Don't sell yourself short. I think you would have been a good National SOCIALIST (Nazi).

.

I have never said the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional. I have said it should be repealed. God, you people and your strawmen. I'm glad you have them, so at least you can look smart to yourselves. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm pretty sure you've said that income taxes are unconstitutional.

Pretty dang sure.

PS
Don't sell yourself short. I think you would have been a good National SOCIALIST (Nazi). Originally Posted by joe bloe

Only if people that think like you were Jewish

Constitutional scholars do "go back and ask the context or real meaning of the words" of the Constitution. That's SCOTUS's job. They have the Federalist Papers and other writings of the founders that help them to understand what the original intent was.

The Constitution was written in plain English with the intention of being easy to understand. We're not dealing with Egyptian hieroglyphics. Liberals that wish the Constitution did not exist, pretend that it's impossible to understand so that they have an excuse to ignore it or interpret it in ways that are obviously contrary to original intent.

. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Then why at one point is slavery ok , then not.

Women can't vote, now can?

Because people are human and see what they need/want to see in the Constitution.

If it was so clear then we wound not need a SC , if we had one all rulings would be 9-0.

Come on man, you sound like a patriotic parrot.

You say all the things they taught you to say. Use your brain. See how the real world works. It is all just a big game. Lighten up, enjoy life.

I'm pretty sure you've said that income taxes are unconstitutional.

Pretty dang sure. Originally Posted by Doove

Then prove it, Doofe. They SHOULD be unconstitutional. They USED TO BE unconstitutional. But currently they are not unconstitutional. And I have never said anything other than that.

But that doesn't fit your strawman, does it? Nice try. Thanks for playing.