Catholic Charities Mixes Politics with Community Services

[giblets]

The use of the 14th amendment to advance classical liberalism in every direction is not the way it ought to be done. Consequentialism is for things that aren't the foundations of our government.

Okay, now I'm not sure what you're talking about.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Quick comparison:

If you can't see how one can lead to the other, you are completely dense.

I don't see how one can always lead to the other

Oh look, one of these things is different and typical of a child trying to make an argument by deliberately misquoting in order to erect strawmen...

You were saying about logic...

[Hauldren Collider]

Okay, now I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I'm talking about the fact that the reconstruction amendments have been used to place the requirements of the bill of rights to the states, but only the parts of the bill of rights that we actually like, which is a totally consequentialist (as opposed to following actual procedure) approach to constitutional law.

[giblets]

Yes, down with progress

Especially this crazy radical:



Btw, the guy that wrote that was a man named James Madison, also known as "The Father of the Constitution". Bastard!

It looks like he's saying that you're supposed to figure out what the words meant at the time they were written, instead of using the modern definitions of words that were written a long time ago. In other words, it's the same thing as what Zevico said. But I could be wrong.

[giblets]

I'm talking about the fact that the reconstruction amendments have been used to place the requirements of the bill of rights to the states, but only the parts of the bill of rights that we actually like, which is a totally consequentialist (as opposed to following actual procedure) approach to constitutional law.

Okay. So why should we ignore consequences when dealing with rights? Does free speech give you the right to incite violence?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It looks like he's saying that you're supposed to figure out what the words meant at the time they were written, instead of using the modern definitions of words that were written a long time ago. In other words, it's the same thing as what Zevico said. But I could be wrong.

Madison is saying if you depend on the words, then they will change in meaning. Because they are words and that is what words do. Basically the meaning of the text is beyond the mere words, but to their principles (Federalist #37 expounds on this a bit).

[Zevico]

Yes, down with progress

I oppose legal progressivism. Those who say they support or oppose "progress" are trading in bromides.

You quote Madison, but nowhere in that passage does he state that it is for the judiciary to change the meaning of the constitutional text. Madison does not suggest as much. In fact, as Gribbler pointed out, Madison expresses the contrary view (and agrees with my view). That is apparent from the first three sentences of the passage you quoted.

In the passage you bolded, Madison simply indicates that, just as language evolves to suit modern needs, so too should government evolve to suit modern needs.

Indeed, nowhere in that passage does Madison speak of the judiciary changing the constitutional text on a whim. Nowhere does he suggest that the instrument of 'evolution' is the judicial branch of government, rather than those persons to which the task of amendment is granted in the text itself.

Therein lies the fallacy in your argument: you're reading into Madison that which he simply does not say. You assume he speaks of the judiciary as the instrument of constitutional change but that is simply not what he was talking about.

[DaShi]

Damn, HC's education was wasted.

[Hauldren Collider]

Damn, DaShi spends his time passing witless barbs...

Also, Zevico

[Imran Siddiqui]

Therein lies the fallacy in your argument: you're reading into Madison that which he simply does not say. You assume he speaks of the judiciary as the instrument of constitutional change but that is simply not what he was talking about.

He says words change (it's why I suggested a reading of Federalist 37) and, in Fed 37, throughout English history that statutes didn't really get fully defined until there were numbers of court cases that determined the full meaning. He seems to be speaking of it as a necessary evil but necessary nonetheless due to the nature of language. So I'm reading into Madison what he says somewhere else on the matter.

[DaShi]

Damn, DaShi spends his time passing witless barbs...

Also, Zevico

Exactly, Zevico stated your argument far more intelligently and eloquently than you seem capable of. I just wonder if what your parents have spent on your education is worth it. And you're still wrong.

[Ben Kenobi]

From a legal perspective, the "doctrine" of progressive interpretation of a statute is really just hogwash.

Interesting to see that my opinions are backed up by someone who is a lawyer. Funny that.

[MrFun]

Interesting to see that another lawyer in this thread has pwned you.

[Ben Kenobi]

Zevico is a lawyer and he exposed Imran. So I am pleased to see that your appeal to authority is for naught.

[MrFun]