Trump Budget Proposes Killing All Funding for PBS, NPR and National Endowment for the Arts

They are explanations of the Constitution, written by the people who wrote the Constitution.

But even if they are just "opinions", they are the opinions of the best experts on the Constitution.

 

They are not the law of the land, and they explain one interpretation of the constitution, to sway the vote to pass it back when it was written. I guess for flouting them so much you forgot that the federalist papers primary intent was to get the constitution passed.

 

Puerile ad homs because you cannot support your position?

The Law of the Land finds that the General Welfare of We the People to be Constitutional.

Onus is entirely on you to provide valid legal reasons why it isn't!

 

And there was opposing opinions as well.
And the compromise is what was adopted in the constitution.

 

43 pages, 855 replies and not one shred of evidence to support the notion PBS is biased, beyond some butthurt over climate change being included in nature documentaries.

I think we can chalk that up as a win for those claiming PBS is not biased, folks.

Sorry, but do try again next time.

 

Yep, the only real opposition they have is they don't want to spend the 41 minutes of gov't spending it costs.
Because, it's not RW enough. They do too much educational programming. We can't have an intelligent citizen.

 

You nailed it...

Trump said he loved the UNEDUCATED...he just wants more people to love

 

This thread proved it was unbiased programming and news, but for some stories mentioning climate change.

But the RW actually wants it biased to them or they don't want to fund it. Hypocrites.

 

If they want something biased towards ignorance there are plenty of sites on the internet!

 

Thanks for proving the point.

 

Talk radio and faux news provides a good source. Although, I've heard rumblings in these threads, they aren't far right enough anymore. Faux that is.

 

Oh no!!! What will I do without Sesame Street, Nova, and Nature?!?

 

Federalist Paper 41 expressed James Madison's opinion. It was not universally shared, and does not "prove the Supreme Court wrong". Another author of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, argued the opposite. The Supreme Court has generally sided with Hamilton, not Madison. So you are citing a dissenting view.

 

The supreme court has its own agenda, like all organizations it protects and always seeks to expand its power. Claiming the court is correct because the court says it is correct is not valid.

 

It's certainly more valid than claiming Madison's opinion is the "true" interpretation simply because you wish it were.

Both views have been tested in court -- the only place they CAN be tested. Hamilton's view has prevailed thus far. Thus it is Hamilton's view that rules interpretation of that clause. Want to change that? Then get Madison's view to take its place, by winning a couple of SCOTUS rulings.

 

Again, the court has its own agenda. Madison v Marbury in which the supreme court gave itself extreme power to decide what was constitutional and legal (and has evolved into the power to regulate), a decision which both Madison and Jefferson strongly disagreed. Hamilton wanted a very strong central government - and that was what the Constitution was written to prevent because all organizations move in the direction of acquiring more power, and an excessively powerful govt is tyrannical.

You again claim that the court is right because the court says it is right. The court is biased.

 

I'm not saying the court is right just because it says so. I'm just pointing out that, while the court system can be flawed, you have not presented a better alternative for determining the meaning of the Constitution. You like Madison's interpretation; great. Why does that make Madison's interpretation correct, and Hamilton's wrong? Your personal preference is not a good basis for Constitutional law.

For better or worse, the only means we have for judging competing interpretations is the courts. And in that venue, Hamilton's view has won out.

 

The Constitution is WRITTEN DOWN. Following what it actually says, is only a problem for leftist judges.

 

Oh, Grok. Don't ever change. You are perfect the way you are.

The Constitution is necessarily vague in many places, because it is laying down guidelines for handling unforeseen situations, and thus cannot be super precise in most cases. That is why it is still an effective document today.

A simple example. The Constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishment". Great. But what does that mean, exactly? How do we determine that a given punishment meets the "cruel" standard? Or the "unusual" one? Does a punishment have to be BOTH cruel and unusual to be banned, or is it enough merely to be cruel?

The Constitution is silent on all that. It is up to the courts to interpret what that means, and how it applies to any given punishment.

 

Read the previously mentioned federalist paper. Read Jeffersons letter about Madison v Marbury, read Madisons letters. Read the letters of the various founders. In their minds, the biggest threat to the nation was a central govt, but they recognized the need for one. The result was the Constitution which gave the central govt enumerated, limited powers, and created checks and balances in an attempt to keep power from being consolidated in the central govt.

No, the only means for understanding the Constitution is not the courts. The ultimate power and authority resides in the people, not the courts. Your view reflects everything that the founders of the nation feared - a people ignorant of their freedom and responsibility and willing to be subservient to a powerful central govt.

 

The Constitution is only "vague" to leftists, who seek to insert their perversions into the very clearly written document.

The job of the USSC is to determine if a law is within its limits. PERIOD. It is not the job of the USSC to forward progressive bullcrap, by making up non-existent nonsense, and ascribing it to the Constitution, such as claiming "abortion is protected speech", and other such nonsense. Cruel and unusual would be a practice not common to the People of the United States, as a criminal punishment. Easy.

 

Half true. The Constitution was also a response to the Articles of Confederation, which produced a central government too weak to be effective. They didn't just recognize the need for a central government; they recognized the need for a somewhat strong one.

Your claim sounds nice in theory -- like most libertarian claims. But how would that work in practice? The Constitution means whatever a majority of citizens thinks it means at any given time? There should be national votes on every court case with Constitutional implications? We wouldn't know if a law was constitutional until it was voted on, and existing laws could become unConstitutional at whim?

That doesn't sound very workable to me.

 

Your answer only covers the "unusual" part of the language. Please address the "cruel" half.

Further, What determines that a given practice is "not common"? If it is practiced in 7 of the 13 colonies, is that common? What if it is the seven smallest colonies? What if it is only practiced in Virginia, but it is practiced widely there? Are there punishments that would be Constitutional in some states, but not others?

And if all unusual punishments are banned, how would the country ever introduce new forms of punishment?

The Constitution answers none of these questions. They can only be answered through interpretation, trying to apply the general language of the Constitution to specific cases.

 

Scalia and Thomas both had problems following the Constitution as written down.

 

It was a CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court that made that ruling!