11 ms·

I totally disagree on slowing down his writing. think about the federalist papers for a second. Someone needed to wrote them to convince a nation about our be

by inzax 13y ago

I totally disagree on slowing down his writing. think about the federalist papers for a second. Someone needed to wrote them to convince a nation about our beloved constitution. Since all eyes are on Snowden, he has the best ability to sway many minds about what he believes and what I believe to be right.

bobo1357 13y ago
Shouldn't the interpretation of our Constitution be left to the Supreme Court? I mean, the Constitution explicitly grants the Court those powers.
- inzax 13y ago
  Do you really trust the supreme court these days? 7 men and women designed to decide the fate of our country? also, the supreme court has no say in this. Its the fisa court....
  - bobo1357 13y ago
    If we're not following the rule of law, what laws should we follow? Who should interpret our laws? The Supreme Court has the power to issue an order called a “writ of mandamus” to deal with lower courts that overstep their legal authority.
    - jessaustin 13y ago
      What the fuck is the holdup?
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    If I were going to decide whether or not I'd trust the Supreme Court, one of the first things I'd want to learn is how many justices sit on it.
    - jivatmanx 13y ago
      Which is only convention, not by law, and in any case, just an arbitrary number. FDR threatened to pack the court with lackeys if they didn't vote in favor of his programs. Which raises the obvious question of, since that event, has the Supreme Court really even served as a check on executive power? I suppose, at least, FDR would have had to answer to public opinion if he had actually carried out that threat. Unlike, say, if the secret FISA court were so threatened.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Which is only convention, not by law, and in any case, just an arbitrary number No, its actually set by law, not convention. > FDR threatened to pack the court with lackeys if they didn't vote in favor of his programs. FDR proposed legislation to Congress which would have expanded the number of Justices on the Supreme Court. [1] It was not a threat of unilateral action. The President can't appoint people to the Court without an open seat, created by Congress, to appoint them to. > I suppose, at least, FDR would have had to answer to public opinion if he had actually carried out that threat. Unlike, say, if the secret FISA court were so threatened. There are two different courts created under FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review), and the members of both are selected by the Chief Justice of the United States from among current members of the federal judiciary. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill...
  - jasonkolb 13y ago
    The Supreme Court is just another political body. If you have any doubt about this just look at the nomination hearings, as well as the huge number of 5-4 rulings. If the law were clear and it wasn't political, most of the rulings would be heavily slanted one way or another as it would be clear to the justices and there would be very little disagreement. In short I agree: the Supreme Court is NOT The Voice of God.
- betterunix 13y ago
  For legal purposes, sure, but if the people disagree with the court's decision there are ways to change things. We could amend the constitution, we could throw it out and write a new one, we could change the makeup of the court, etc. Legally the ultimate authority on the interpretation of the constitution rests with the Supreme Court, but the citizens of this nation are free to express what they want out of the constitution. We are allowed to disagree with the court, we are allowed to voice our disapproval, and we are allowed to try to rally others to our cause. The Supreme Court is not some kind of heavenly authority, they are just as capable as making the wrong decision as any other branch of government.
  - bobo1357 13y ago
    Yes, you're free to express what you want out of the Constitution but you're not free to break laws as interpreted by our federal courts. Unless the Constitution is amended, shouldn't we be following the rule of law and let the Court interpret the Constitution?
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      You're free to do what you want as long as you're willing to accept the consequences. You're free to rob a bank if you think it's worth the potential jail time and harm to other people.
      - bobo1357 13y ago
        This is quite the straw man. I meant free in a legal sense.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        It's exactly the point though. You are free to break laws, or at least you are free to try. You are not nearly so free to break laws once you are in prison. I think what you're saying is that you cannot expect to break laws without there being consequences. Of course we agree about that. The point of civil disobedience is that you believe so strongly you are willing to pay the price. Perhaps you believe it is morally wrong to break laws as a means of getting the courts to interpret the Constitution?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Shouldn't the interpretation of our Constitution be left to the Supreme Court? No. > I mean, the Constitution explicitly grants the Court those powers. The Constitution defines the judicial power of the United States to include deciding certain classes of legal controversies, including those arising under the Constitution, and provides that the Supreme Court is the organ which executes that role in both an explicitly defined set of cases, and in certain other cases as Congress directs. But that is pretty far from explicitly granting the Supreme Court the sole and exclusive power to interpret the Constitution. Interpreting the Constitution is no less essential to the Supreme Court's role of deciding certain legal controversies than it is to, e.g., the President's role of seeing that the laws -- including the Constitution -- are faithfully executed, or the Congress's role in carrying out the powers and responsibilities it has defined in the Constitution, or the public's role in evaluating the performance of all three branches and electing members to the two political branches. The Supreme Court (or the judiciary, or even "government officials" more generally) isn't a special priestly caste to whom the contemplation of certain mysteries is restricted. That would be contrary to the entire concept of government of, by, and for the people.
  - bobo1357 13y ago
    Read Article III, Section 1. "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court."
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      That's not what is says. Particularly, that period you put in isn't where the sentence ends, the full sentence is: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Further, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is defined in Art. III, Sec. 2: "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." The Exceptions Clause is significant.
pbreit 13y ago
Replying to bobo: no. Anyone should be able to interpret the constitution as no person or group of people are infallible. It's obvious that SCOTUS opinions change over time, due to composition and prevailing attitudes.
- bobo1357 13y ago
  So it's okay to pick and choose which texts to follow from our Constitution? The Constitution doesn't give Snowden the power to interpret it. It does however give that duty to our federal courts. Should we just ignore that part in our Constitution?
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    The only reason courts interpret the Constitution is because somebody brings forth a constitutional challenge. Often that discussion results from somebody breaking a law. The point is if Congress passes an unjust law, a legitimate recourse is to force the issue by breaking it intentionally and asking a judge to decide.
  - ensignavenger 13y ago
    Where does the Constitution give sole authority for interpreting it to the Supreme Court? In fact, it does not even give that authority to the Supreme Court. Judicial review was not established directly in the COnstitution.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      Article III section 2: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...
  - jasonkolb 13y ago
    Here: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed , -- And here's the important part, pay attention: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it
anigbrowl 13y ago
I'm rereading the Federalist Papers right now, as it happens. I can't help thinking that most of HN would dismiss Hamilton and Madison as 'statist thugs' if I were to start quoting or paraphrasing the views of those gentlemen on topics like national security.
- jivatmanx 13y ago
  Hamilton argued at the constitutional convention for an elected monarchy. He admired Caesar above all others, and throughout his life held a profound disdain of the lower class. - “the people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government.” Read his Caesar letters, or his constitutional convention speech, or other writings, as these views aren't really apparent in the Federalist papers. Madison is interesting, but he didn't hold to a single consistent political philosophy through his life.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
eli 13y ago
I think you misread what I wrote. I suggested he write fewer letters about his beliefs, his security, and his personal situation.

by inzax 13y ago

bobo1357 13y ago

Shouldn't the interpretation of our Constitution be left to the Supreme Court? I mean, the Constitution explicitly grants the Court those powers.

inzax 13y ago
Do you really trust the supreme court these days? 7 men and women designed to decide the fate of our country? also, the supreme court has no say in this. Its the fisa court....
- bobo1357 13y ago
  If we're not following the rule of law, what laws should we follow? Who should interpret our laws? The Supreme Court has the power to issue an order called a “writ of mandamus” to deal with lower courts that overstep their legal authority.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    What the fuck is the holdup?
- twoodfin 13y ago
  If I were going to decide whether or not I'd trust the Supreme Court, one of the first things I'd want to learn is how many justices sit on it.
  - jivatmanx 13y ago
    Which is only convention, not by law, and in any case, just an arbitrary number. FDR threatened to pack the court with lackeys if they didn't vote in favor of his programs. Which raises the obvious question of, since that event, has the Supreme Court really even served as a check on executive power? I suppose, at least, FDR would have had to answer to public opinion if he had actually carried out that threat. Unlike, say, if the secret FISA court were so threatened.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Which is only convention, not by law, and in any case, just an arbitrary number No, its actually set by law, not convention. > FDR threatened to pack the court with lackeys if they didn't vote in favor of his programs. FDR proposed legislation to Congress which would have expanded the number of Justices on the Supreme Court. [1] It was not a threat of unilateral action. The President can't appoint people to the Court without an open seat, created by Congress, to appoint them to. > I suppose, at least, FDR would have had to answer to public opinion if he had actually carried out that threat. Unlike, say, if the secret FISA court were so threatened. There are two different courts created under FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review), and the members of both are selected by the Chief Justice of the United States from among current members of the federal judiciary. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill...
- jasonkolb 13y ago
  The Supreme Court is just another political body. If you have any doubt about this just look at the nomination hearings, as well as the huge number of 5-4 rulings. If the law were clear and it wasn't political, most of the rulings would be heavily slanted one way or another as it would be clear to the justices and there would be very little disagreement. In short I agree: the Supreme Court is NOT The Voice of God.
betterunix 13y ago
For legal purposes, sure, but if the people disagree with the court's decision there are ways to change things. We could amend the constitution, we could throw it out and write a new one, we could change the makeup of the court, etc. Legally the ultimate authority on the interpretation of the constitution rests with the Supreme Court, but the citizens of this nation are free to express what they want out of the constitution. We are allowed to disagree with the court, we are allowed to voice our disapproval, and we are allowed to try to rally others to our cause. The Supreme Court is not some kind of heavenly authority, they are just as capable as making the wrong decision as any other branch of government.
- bobo1357 13y ago
  Yes, you're free to express what you want out of the Constitution but you're not free to break laws as interpreted by our federal courts. Unless the Constitution is amended, shouldn't we be following the rule of law and let the Court interpret the Constitution?
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    You're free to do what you want as long as you're willing to accept the consequences. You're free to rob a bank if you think it's worth the potential jail time and harm to other people.
    - bobo1357 13y ago
      This is quite the straw man. I meant free in a legal sense.
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        It's exactly the point though. You are free to break laws, or at least you are free to try. You are not nearly so free to break laws once you are in prison. I think what you're saying is that you cannot expect to break laws without there being consequences. Of course we agree about that. The point of civil disobedience is that you believe so strongly you are willing to pay the price. Perhaps you believe it is morally wrong to break laws as a means of getting the courts to interpret the Constitution?
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Shouldn't the interpretation of our Constitution be left to the Supreme Court? No. > I mean, the Constitution explicitly grants the Court those powers. The Constitution defines the judicial power of the United States to include deciding certain classes of legal controversies, including those arising under the Constitution, and provides that the Supreme Court is the organ which executes that role in both an explicitly defined set of cases, and in certain other cases as Congress directs. But that is pretty far from explicitly granting the Supreme Court the sole and exclusive power to interpret the Constitution. Interpreting the Constitution is no less essential to the Supreme Court's role of deciding certain legal controversies than it is to, e.g., the President's role of seeing that the laws -- including the Constitution -- are faithfully executed, or the Congress's role in carrying out the powers and responsibilities it has defined in the Constitution, or the public's role in evaluating the performance of all three branches and electing members to the two political branches. The Supreme Court (or the judiciary, or even "government officials" more generally) isn't a special priestly caste to whom the contemplation of certain mysteries is restricted. That would be contrary to the entire concept of government of, by, and for the people.
- bobo1357 13y ago
  Read Article III, Section 1. "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court."
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    That's not what is says. Particularly, that period you put in isn't where the sentence ends, the full sentence is: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Further, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is defined in Art. III, Sec. 2: "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." The Exceptions Clause is significant.

pbreit 13y ago

Replying to bobo: no. Anyone should be able to interpret the constitution as no person or group of people are infallible. It's obvious that SCOTUS opinions change over time, due to composition and prevailing attitudes.

bobo1357 13y ago
So it's okay to pick and choose which texts to follow from our Constitution? The Constitution doesn't give Snowden the power to interpret it. It does however give that duty to our federal courts. Should we just ignore that part in our Constitution?
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  The only reason courts interpret the Constitution is because somebody brings forth a constitutional challenge. Often that discussion results from somebody breaking a law. The point is if Congress passes an unjust law, a legitimate recourse is to force the issue by breaking it intentionally and asking a judge to decide.
- ensignavenger 13y ago
  Where does the Constitution give sole authority for interpreting it to the Supreme Court? In fact, it does not even give that authority to the Supreme Court. Judicial review was not established directly in the COnstitution.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Article III section 2: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...
- jasonkolb 13y ago
  Here: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed , -- And here's the important part, pay attention: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

anigbrowl 13y ago

I'm rereading the Federalist Papers right now, as it happens. I can't help thinking that most of HN would dismiss Hamilton and Madison as 'statist thugs' if I were to start quoting or paraphrasing the views of those gentlemen on topics like national security.

jivatmanx 13y ago
Hamilton argued at the constitutional convention for an elected monarchy. He admired Caesar above all others, and throughout his life held a profound disdain of the lower class. - “the people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government.” Read his Caesar letters, or his constitutional convention speech, or other writings, as these views aren't really apparent in the Federalist papers. Madison is interesting, but he didn't hold to a single consistent political philosophy through his life.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

eli 13y ago

I think you misread what I wrote. I suggested he write fewer letters about his beliefs, his security, and his personal situation.