When citing the Constitution it is best NOT to cite court cases

[dude58677]

Four reasons:

1) The Supreme Court rarely rules in favor to the natural rights of man.

2) If the Supreme Court does rule in favor of the natural rigths of man, legal "scholars" usually distort the meaning and because of all the jargon it is impossible to educate the average person on what the Constitution means.

3) It is impossible for the Supreme Court to protect every single right. This is esp true with the ninth amendment which lists every single unenumerated right.

4) The text of the Constitution is really easy to read and thus you don't need anyone to read it for you.

 

[kombayn]

What's so hard to understand about the Constitution? Besides, all you really need to know is the Bill of Rights, I have a refrigerator magnet from the History Channel that has the Bill of Rights. That's the most important part of our Constitution.

 

[Acala]

Disagree

I disagree that the Bill of Rights is the most important part of the Constitution. The most important part of the Constitution is what is NOT in it - enumerated powers to do MOST of what our government has been doing for the last century. The Bill of Rights wouldn't even be necessary if the rest of the Constitution was followed as written and intended.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

I disagree that the Bill of Rights is the most important part of the Constitution. The most important part of the Constitution is what is NOT in it - enumerated powers to do MOST of what our government has been doing for the last century. The Bill of Rights wouldn't even be necessary if the rest of the Constitution was followed as written and intended.

This reminds me of the Flight protocol manuals of Navy and Air force pilots:

AIR FORCE: You can only do what is exactly written in the manual

NAVY: It's not in the manual, you can do exactly what you wish


It's a matter of interpretation according to the courts... don't expect the Supreme Court or any other US court to rule in favor of the individual, when it limits or costs government.

I agree... If the Constitution was followed, the Bill of Rights would just be the "fine print" on the bottom of the last page.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

Four reasons:

1) The Supreme Court rarely rules in favor to the natural rights of man.

2) If the Supreme Court does rule in favor of the natural rigths of man, legal "scholars" usually distort the meaning and because of all the jargon it is impossible to educate the average person on what the Constitution means.

3) It is impossible for the Supreme Court to protect every single right. This is esp true with the ninth amendment which lists every single unenumerated right.

4) The text of the Constitution is really easy to read and thus you don't need anyone to read it for you.

good points! I did manage to get tangled in the legalise of McCulloch v/s Maryland.

 

[Matt Collins]

​

 

[qaxn]

​

def. recommended if you want a good laugh (at how crazy the author is).

while the supreme court is a force for greater federal power, it's also the most consistently pro individual liberty bodies in the government.

1) The Supreme Court rarely rules in favor to the natural rights of man.

the courts rock w/r/t freedom. incorporation doctrine, griswold v. connecticut, us v. opez, dc v. heller, hamdan v. rumsfeld, tinker v. des moines, etc.

2) If the Supreme Court does rule in favor of the natural rigths of man, legal "scholars" usually distort the meaning and because of all the jargon it is impossible to educate the average person on what the Constitution means.

goddamn terminology, why can't they just explain everything in crazy verbose trainwrecks rather than simplify things down to a single word?

3) It is impossible for the Supreme Court to protect every single right. This is esp true with the ninth amendment which lists every single unenumerated right.

what.
for reference:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

4) The text of the Constitution is really easy to read and thus you don't need anyone to read it for you.

the problem here is that your common-sense reading of the constitution isn't the same as my common-sense reading of the constitution. hence jurisprudence. cf. the need for judges and juries in criminal trials.