Barney Frank: “It’s an air kiss they’re blowing to the Tea Party”
"Bill Whittle, you may have put the nation on the road to recovery of the Founders' enlightened vision of freedom singlehandedly," we wrote in the caption to our post "A Declaration of Independence: Art for freedom's sake" last March: "Longhandedly, that is, as in writing out the Declaration of Independence longhand. We've completed the first part (three 8 1/2 x 11 sheets, above) and found the exercise a revelation."
By Sissy Willis of sisu
"It's an air kiss they're blowing to the tea party," Barney Frank dismisses the House Republican majority's "new rule requiring members to cite the specific constitutional authority for any bill they introduce." The lower chamber's first order of business on Thursday, one day after Speaker-designate John Boehner is sworn in, will be a reading aloud of the Constitution, a shock to the system of those like Frank who have lost sight of the Shining City through the fog of their willful misreading of the Founders' intent …
Read full post here.
I have no doubt Frank knows the US Constitution….and, like obama, has complete and utter contempt for it. I wish someone would confront him, obama and the rest of the liberal elite and demand that if they consider the Constitution obsolete (or as obama has said a flawed and irrelevant document)then we dissolve this country and re-form it under a new constitution (I cannot imagine how many pages long that would be). I cannot believe (but must)that this country elected a potus who so openly detested the Constitution.
Bwarny Fwank is ILL advised to use the term “blowing” in any sentence…
It should come as no surprise that both supporters and opponents of a particular policy will cite the Constitution as supporting their position.
It’s a document open to interpretation, which is why we have a Judicial branch.
Frank: You still don’t get it.
Well good, because I am blowing an air kiss back at them for READING the Constitution on the floor of the House of Representatives! It should be done every two years!
Get what? Reasonable minds can disagree about the meaning of particular phrases in the Constitution (ex. what constitutes an unreasonable search?). The Constitution is not some magical incantation that automatically renders a particular opinion valid. Otherwise we wouldn’t have centuries of caselaw clarifying it.
Frank, the Congress, determines the meaning of the constitution.
“It’s a document open to interpretation, which is why we have a Judicial branch.”
Have you read the Constitution…you know…to see what it says about “why we have a judicial branch”?
The Constitution was written to be understood by folks. It did not require a priest-class.
IF you start from a few, very constant, very true predicates on human nature, there isn’t a whole lot of “interpretation” needed.
If you study history, the “interpretations” get even narrower.
Xiaoding: not according to Marbury
Ragspierre: By your own words, you admit that the Constitution is not clear on its face. You have to research and study history in order to deign the true meanings. That, in and of itself, is an interpretation of its words.
I’m not making a revolutionary argument here. Reasonable minds can disagree about what constitutes interstate commerce, or cruel and unusual punishment, or an unreasonable search. These phrases are not clear on their face.
Dearest Frank: See also Professor Jacobson’s “More Dumbed-Down Talk About The Constitution From A You-Know-Who”: http://bit.ly/gOa5bg
Sissy: I’ve read it. He’s repeating the Originalist view of Constitutional interpretation.
“Reasonable minds can disagree about what constitutes interstate commerce, or cruel and unusual punishment, or an unreasonable search. These phrases are not clear on their face.”
Actually, they were clear on their face in the context in which they were written. “Interstate commerce” had a clear, definitive meaning to the Founders. It did not, for instance, include “intrastate commerce”…or any damn thing that could effect an economy. That is why they used the words “interstate commerce”, see?
How they would be APPLIED to a given situation DID require some interpretation.
They were WRITTEN as broad governing concepts, which is why the document itself is simple and short. It was not…never was…intended to be explicit. That was the role of the laws that Congress would pass CONSISTENT with the charter of government.
And only when those laws were consistent with the charter under which we allowed a central government to exist.
Ragspierre: And reasonable minds can disagree about that interpretation. Heck, there is a raging debate about the validity of originalim.
Either way, reading the Constitution on the floor of the House and requiring a cite for all laws is a stunt – it has no practical effect because a supporters of a particular policy will always be able to cite the Constitution in support of their position.
It’s red meat for the base. It doesn’t make it a harmful thing, but don’t try an elevate it into something it’s not.
“And reasonable minds can disagree about that interpretation.”
‘K. Give it a try.
Explain how “interstate commerce” meant “intrastate commerce”. That should be fun.
Now, I don’t believe the Constitution was intended to be static. That is why there is an amendment process…excuse me…PROCESSES.
But NOBODY gets to alter it by the single vote of an unelected mook in a robe. That notion does violence to the fundamental idea of a REPUBLICAN democracy, with a Constitution that means what it says, and which belongs to the people.
“‘K. Give it a try. Explain how “interstate commerce” meant “intrastate commerce”. That should be fun.”
Um… no. I can’t think of a more boring discussion. It is one of bigger issue in Constitutional interpretation, but I’m not a legal scholar and I’ve never held myself out as one. I do know that people much smarter than myself are having this debate – so if you want to read the justifications, go find what they’ve written or read the cases. As far as the commerce clause and regulation of intrastate commerce – I believe the word “nexus” figures in prominently.
The fact is – there is a debate. Both about the Commerce Clause and the validity of originalism. Neither side has put forth such a completely compelling argument so as to vanquish their opponents. Which brings us back around to the fact that supporters of a particular policy will always cite the Constitution as supporting their viewpoint.
La.
You can’t justify any argument as dumb as the one you were championing here, so you punt to “smarter people”.
I’m just a country lawyer. And I can see how a lot of “smart people” have dug this nation into a deep hole. Several deep holes, actually.
There’s a debate? Really? Name any essential, even existential, issue where there is NOT a debate.
Again, an intellectually lazy…even dishonest…position.
Not always, but very often, there are simply right and wrong positions. Regardless of who can rationalize what.
“Reasonable minds” can get you killed. They can also destroy this republic.
The only argument I’m championing is that proponents of almost any policy will be able to cite to the Constitution. Which is why the requirement of including a cite with every law is a stunt. As is reading the Constitution on the floor.
The fact that you believe originalism is the one true method of interpretation, and all other methods are false does not change the fact that the subject of this thread – requiring a cite and reading the Constitution – is a stunt.
I originally said that the Constitution is a document open to interpretation – as evidenced by the fact that the meaning of the phrases are not clear on their face. You feel the phrases themselves are clear, but the proper application requires interpretation. Seems pretty similar to me.
People disagree about the Constitution. We have centuries of caselaw as evidence.
Oh, and that debating the merits of originalism is unbelievably boring. I’ll take that position too.
Sounds like the Tea Party types can be satisfied with empty gestures and meaningless votes.
How lucky for the big government republicans now in charge of the House.
Damn Frankie you do get your panties in a bunch, don’t cha?
I’d hate to have a conversation about the bible with Frankie! That would make be like pulling teeth without Novacaine. You know, the whole “people smarter than me” already do this argument!
As far as the thread topic of Barney talking about “blowing” anything it only creates a very disturbing mental picture!!
Ragspierre -
‘Bwarny Fwank is ILL advised to use the term “blowing” in any sentence…’
I don’t get it.
Could you explain?
Wait…do you mean because he’s gay…and, like those guys…well you know.
But straight people do that to. I mean, I’m not suggesting you do, did, would , or have…but assuming you’re straight, would you be as ill advised to use the word ‘blowing’? What about the word ‘job’ – should Barney Frank not use that word either?
I noticed above you referenced ‘deep holes’…twice.
Maybe ill advised.
(Or maybe just knee-jerk homophobia is ill advised.)
SacTownMan – please stop thinking about my underwear. It may help your mental picture.
Hmmm…having trouble posting
“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.”
Thomas Jefferson,Oct 31, 1823
“The only argument I’m championing is that proponents of almost any policy will be able to cite to the Constitution.”
With zero validity sometimes. How is that a vacant exercise? See, the courts look to legislative intent in statutory interpretation. This gives them a trail of potentially BOGUS rationale they can point to.
So, it isn’t a “stunt”. It also flushes out some of the total BS. I mean, when a Deemocrat says conservatives want to kill you, do you give that equal weight with what sane people say?
I pointed out…and I think demonstrated…the Constitution is NOT “open to interpretation”. That a court…or series of courts…have GROSSLY misinterpreted the Constitution does not mean anything BUT that there has been a misinterpretation of our charter. “Interstate commerce” had a plain meaning. To change it, you write an amendment and get it passed. No court has any business looking past the meaning of the document, as written by the people who wrote it, in the context of the writing. That is also a basic tenant of the interpretation of ANY freaking document, including your simplest contract.
“People disagree about the Constitution. We have centuries of caselaw as evidence.”
We also have a history…beginning roughly with Wilson…of people who very clearly decided to trash it, and said so in very clear terms.
I can see why you find the debate boring.
I consider it vital.
“Sounds like the Tea Party types can be satisfied with empty gestures and meaningless votes.”
Sounds like barfo whistling past the open grave of his hopes.
mikeNOsense…
I was commenting to grown-ups…with a sense of humor.
You wouldn’t understand.
Right. Precedent doesn’t matter because everybody post-Lochner hated the Constitution. Got it.
So now you have to argue that even though legislators can cite valid precedents for Constitutional support for almost anything, somehow those cites aren’t good enough.
You cannot ignore the fact that many in the legal community and especially the judiciary does not agree with originalism. (Not sure about the percentages – at best maybe 50-50?) That means there is a debate. About the Constitution. And the meaning of its phrases.
The funny part of it is – the HealthCare legislation would have complied with this new requirement of adding a cite. All they would have had to do was add “Constitutional support: Commerce Clause”. Which makes the requirement a stunt. No teeth. No effect.
Seems like even as our friends on the left side of the aisle whine and bicker, John Boehners’s been study’g SarahPalin’s embrace of the full panoply of media, old & new:
“For the first time ever, Congress will be broadcast live on Facebook” tomorrow.”
http://bit.ly/huPEst
“Right. Precedent doesn’t matter because everybody post-Lochner hated the Constitution. Got it.”
No. You don’t.
“So now you have to argue that even though legislators can cite valid precedents for Constitutional support for almost anything, somehow those cites aren’t good enough.”
Key word, fool…VALID. Which sorta makes my point, don’t it…??? IF you can cite to “valid” support for any freaking thing you want to impose, there isn’t really a Constitution, is there?
“That means there is a debate. About the Constitution. And the meaning of its phrases.”
We have plowed that ground, remember? There are a lot of people who despise the Constitution, and find it chaffing. BHO is one.
The “legal community” is a Collectivist enclave. Been there. Work there now. Know their BS well.
“Commerce clause” would be a lie, as they’ve already admitted in their legal arguments saying it is a tax. But lies don’t matter to the Collective. Just part of their tool kit.
Do you read?
What’s the over/under on how many times he cries? I’d say 2. 3 if he’s been drinking.
“What’s the over/under on how many times he cries? I’d say 2. 3 if he’s been drinking.”
Who, Bwany…???
A cite is not valid if you disagree with it. Got it.
A cite is not valid if it doesn’t conform with with an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Which wipes out entire doctrines and areas of law. Got it.
So now we’re left with only citing precedent that you agree with. The magical limited legal world of Ragspierre.
That’s not reality. Right now, there is a lot of valid precedent that you disagree with. But, just because you disagree with it does not make it invalid. So, a legislator can propose a bill in the House (that you disagree with) that cites valid precedent (that you disagree with) and it fulfills the requirement of a Constitutional cite. It is a requirement without teeth and without effect.
Rags: “”Commerce clause” would be a lie, as they’ve already admitted in their legal arguments saying it is a tax.”
Rags is absolutely correct on this point.
The obambi administration has done backflips from assuring everyone this wasn’t a tax, and writing the legislation in that way, and then switching their stories utterly when confronted with a legal challenge to the obambi health care legislation.
“I was commenting to grown-ups”
Well, a select group of..
“…with a sense of humor”
Maybe with a juvenile sense of humor.
(Also, Frank the T. was referring to Boehner crying.)
Frank: “What’s the over/under on how many times he cries? I’d say 2. 3 if he’s been drinking.”
I dunno.
What’s the over/under on how many times the American people have cried since unemployment reached 9.8%?
I know I know.
The left says “who cares”! You gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette.
“A cite is not valid if you disagree with it. Got it.”
Like I said. No. You don’t.
You apparently have trouble with the rational concept of “valid”. Look it up.
“A cite is not valid if it doesn’t conform with with an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Which wipes out entire doctrines and areas of law. Got it.”
If an “entire doctrine and area of law” does not conform to the Constitution, it is already invalid. Don’t hurt your brain on that one.
Again, if all precedent is “valid”, and virtually anything the Congress imposes on us can cite to precedent, we have NO Const___________n. See, I tried to make that easier for you.
Sometimes, I wonder…I mean, I know Collectivists have wiring problems, but DAYAM…!!!!
I think you’ve argued yourself in a circle. You need to separate your pretend version of precedent (where everyone is an orginalist and it’s the only valid interpretation of the Constitution) from reality.
Reality: There are whole areas of law that are in conflict with an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Yet it is still able to be cited in any court in the country. That means it is precedent. That means it’s a valid cite. It hasn’t been overruled.
It’s not difficult. Precedent is valid until it is overruled or superceded by statute.
Oh, and I like the part where you argue that there is no Constitution because you disagree with the precedents interpreting it. That doesn’t sound delusional at all.
‘The magical limited legal world of Ragspierre.’
A world where circular logic squares all.
Be warned, Frank the T., you’ve got Drago on the case now.
He plays the same word games as Ragspierre.
I’m not saying it’s not fun…
“Precedent is valid until it is overruled or superceded by statute.”
No, stupid. Precedent is PRECEDENT until…as you say.
That NEVER makes it VALID. It ONLY makes it precedent, which is often totally INVALID.
I can see the blank look…
Maybe a little history… Wickert completely stood all previous Commerce Clause jurisprudence on its head. Until it was handed down in 1942, all CC precedent held AGAINST Wickert. A case decided the year before HELD AGAINST Wickert.
Now, Wickert is PRECEDENT, but that does NOT MAKE IT VALID. As a matter of fact, there is very little argument for its validity.
It was a result of naked political power by FDR (no friend of the Supremes, and no friend of the Constitution). He had plausibly threatened to “pack” the SCOTUS (there is no magic number of justices specified in the Constitution). He made the Justices, who believed in the integrity of the court, blink.
Hence, Wickert.
I hope that helps…but with only my usual optimism as a basis…
“A world where circular logic squares all.”
That is easily demonstrated…unless you are lying.
Go for it….
“Wickard”…sorry all…my spelling demon at work, coupled with my name demon…
Hey, it had a “W”, which for me is good…
Wow you’re obtuse. I mean shockingly, willfully ignorant.
I’m not going to play your little game. Words have meaning to others – meanings you don’t get to arbitrarily decide. The idea that decisions are only valid if the comport to your delusional interpretation is rubbish. I assume you are talking about Wickard v. Filburn. Has the Supreme Court overruled Wickard? Lopez and Morrison limited the doctrine, but it’s still good law (meaning you can cite it). To the rest of the bar, that means it’s valid precedent.
I agree there is bad precedent and bad caselaw, but it is still the law. Which makes it a valid cite. Please continue to throw a temper tantrum about the meaning of “valid”. It’s an amazingly stupid line in the sand.
Back to the topic at hand – the fact is Congressmen are able to find support for nearly any legislation they propose. The new rule in the House is meaningless. It has no teeth and no effect. You can blubber all you want about how the Congressmen are not citing based on your true interpretation of the Constitution, but your whining doesn’t matter. In fact it’s meaningless because it’s not based in reality. The reality is that there are differing views on Constitutional interpretation which give enough coverage for nearly any legislation under the citation rule.
And the reality is that this new House rule (along with reading the Constitution on the floor) is a transparent stunt. Congrats, you fell for it.
God, what an idiot.
Well, I DID try.
Yes, as you note…Wickard is INVALID…but still PRECEDENT. Yes, people DO cite to it. Yes, it is an ACCEPTED CITATION. It is totally INVALID, and a contradiction of what the Court said just a year before.
See, validity lies not in what you or I think of a proposition. It is VALID regardless of all the Bishops of Rome professing otherwise. Or, as in Pasture’s theory of pathogenic disease, all the Academe of Science and all the texts.
Or, as in Wickard, all the Supremes agreeing to a proposition they said was INVALID the year before.
Boy, no wonder the Republic is in jeopardy…
Here we are almost 70 years later, lawyers are still citing Wickard and Ragspierre is in the woods yelling NOOOO!
Keep howling, I’m sure everyone is listening.
“Here we are almost 70 years later, lawyers are still citing Wickard”
And there are idiots telling us “there’s a debate”, and confusing what a judge says and what validity is. The Constitution is everything a judge tells you it is.
Judges have said you should march your neighbors into gas chambers, too.
As noted before…WHAT AN IDIOT.
ItsMike: “Be warned, Frank the T., you’ve got Drago on the case now.
He plays the same word games as Ragspierre.”
The sum total of the word games I “have played” was asking you to define a single term from a single thread which you kept throwing around.
You were unable/incapable of defining the very term you were casually using and to this day you have been trying to change the subject!! LOL!
Even now, weeks later, with an extraordinary amount of time available to you, I’ll be you STILL can’t define the term you were using so loosely!! LOL!!
But hey, I guess your ignorance is somehow my fault!! Of course it is! You’re a leftist! It can’t be your fault!
Oh, and my total contribution to this thread involved nothing more than noting the FACT that the obambi administration argued during debate regarding passage of the health care act that the act required penalties for non-compliance, not taxes.
And now, during arguments before the courts, the obambi admin has turned history on it’s head by arguing that yes indeed, it’s not a mandate or a penalty, it’s a tax!! LOL!
Feel free to demonstrate how my noting the hilarious rhetorical reversal by obambi and his cadre constitutes “playing word games”!! LOL!!
Don’t worry, we won’t actually wait for you to do that. You can’t!!
LOL!
By the way, what did you mean by “Trickle Down economics”? Can you explain yourself yet!!
I’ll bet not!!
LOL!
Drago -
“what did you mean by “Trickle Down economics”?”
You know, I’ve been wondering what it is you’ve been going on about.
I’m not recalling the context, but I probably meant ‘trickle down economics’.
And I’m flattered that this has stuck with you this long (any maybe just a little concerned).
ItsMike: “You know, I’ve been wondering what it is you’ve been going on about.”
Hilarious!!
I’ve reminded you of it AFTER each time you bring up my supposed “word games”! LOL!
My request that you define Trickle Down economics, a term you were loosely throwing around, is the SOLE instance from which you claim I play word games!! LOL!
I’m not surprised that you choose to “forget” this! It clearly behooves you to “forget” much of what you write!
ItsMike: “I’m not recalling the context, but I probably meant ‘trickle down economics’.”
Yes, which is why I asked you to define “trickle down economics”, since “trickle down economics” is the term you used and then asked me if I supported it though it is not really a valid economics term.
It’s a vague term of derision used to attack supply side economic theory in general.
Which is why I asked you to define it, so I could properly assess if your clearly not-fully-formed thoughts on supply side economic theory and practice were worth addressing!
Over and over again.
But you never did define it. So I refused to answer your simplistic query! LOL!
And since that time, you’ve accused me of playing “word games”!
Which is why I made ANOTHER mental note that to a lefty like yourself, asking you to define 1 term from 1 discussion is, in your mind, equivalent to “playing word games”! LOL!
This from the folks are a bit fuzzy on what the meaning of “is” is!
Too rich!
ItsMike: “And I’m flattered that this has stuck with you this long…..”
Yes, of course! I’m sure you’re often “flattered” by criticism that you misconstrue as importance!
LOL! A perfect lefty!
ItsMike: “….any maybe just a little concerned).”
I would humbly suggest that you spend more time being “concerned” about the US being $14 Trillion in debt, obambi and the dems running a $1.2 Trillion annual deficit, unemployment at 9.8%, GDP growing at anemic rates, QEII not going so greatly, the US Treasury being forced to buy up US debt (since fewer and fewer entities will engage in such speculative action), the price of oil edging towards $100/barrel…etc etc.
But hey, as a lefty I realize your primary concern is making sure you get the requisite number of digs in per day at the Palin family!
Priorities, priorities!!
“Xiaoding: not according to Marbury”
Fronk: your refernece is incorrect, Marbury was not about who gets to define the meaning of the constitution.
The Congress, through it’s power to overide the Supreme Court, is the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the constitution. The Congress, decides, what the courts may or may not rule on.
The fact that Congress LETS the court decide, as a matter of convenience, is not relevant.
Frank, you miss the point about having a constitutional justification for a bill. It forces people to state a rational. Then the PEOPLE, will judge that rational, and the person who proposes it. It is a POLITICAL act, and that is why some people are VERY afraid of it. People on the left, usually. Politicians don’t like to get out from under the rock, and this will FORCE them to, on record.
Sorry, Xiao…
you’re just wrong. The Supremes trump everybody on Constitutional questions.
Everybody BUT the PEOPLE. They can amend…
or they can say say “screw you”. (see “Prohibition”)