Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Questions for Schumer...

and several here who keep up the "Living/Changing document" pretext.


Questions for Sen. Schumer

By George F. Will

Sunday, September 4, 2005; Page B07

New York Sen. Charles Schumer, a member of the Judiciary Committee and an author of the Democrats' catechism regarding constitutional reasoning, soon will be questioning Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Herewith some questions someone should ask Schumer:

Does Congress have the power to require Americans to floss after brushing their teeth? Or to regulate the amount of homework children do each night?

Much of his rhetoric does seem to support the circular reasoning necessary to arrive at a yes answer which indicates that the "situation" would rule.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Questions for Schumer...
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Questions for Schumer...
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Ed, your reduction ad absurdem is showing again.

In reply to: Questions for Schumer...

Here's a perfect, real-life example of the two viewpoints.

The Constitution says nothing about regulation of television and radio. How could it -- they weren't invented yet? When those issues came up, the "living document" school, which held sway for the first 200 years of this Constitutional Democracy, said that since radio and TV waves cross state lines, it's naturally in the Federal domain, not the states, to regulate them. "Strict constructionists" argue that because there was no mention of television and radio in the Constitution, their regulation comes under the 10th Amendment, and is reserved to the States. That approach has unfortunately dominated the Texas courts since the current State Constitution was written in was written in 1876, more than 90 years more recently than the US Constitution, yet has already been amended 432 times, with another 9 to be voted on this fall (including one banning gay marriage Sad ), vs. under 30 for the US Constitution in amost 90 more years. That's a very strong argument against strict construction; and that low number says that strict constructionists aren't really "conservative," they're reactionary -- they want to go back to the same flawed viewpoint that doomed the first United States, which lasted only 11 years.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Perfect example? Not what you offered.

In reply to: Ed, your reduction ad absurdem is showing again.

The Constitution says nothing about regulation of television and radio. How could it -- they weren't invented yet?

Didn't have to be invented Dave as they do happen to fall within one of the enumerated powers of government located in Section 8 of the Constitution, namely Commerce. Strict Constructionists DO NOT make the argument you claim.

Judicial activism on the other hand ignores the fact that making laws was specifically relegated to Congress and not the judiciary.

The Constitution was never intended to be a "living document" subject to change at the whim of either the Judiciary or Congress as the specific means for changing it were carefully laid out by the framers. Those means are known as Ammendments to the Constitution.

The 10th Amendment covers such things as States Rights which the Fed has usurped by expanding its powers through judicial fiat rather than properly through Amendments in such things as Abortion, eminent domain, welfare that is nothing more than redistribution of wealth, and yes, even state religions if the state chose to do so as did Virginia and others AFTER the Constitution was ratified.

Amendments to state constitutions are simply red herrings that have no purpose other than diverting attention from your specious argument.

Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


This one tip will help you sleep better tonight

A few seconds are all you need to get a better night's rest.