The final vote on the Civil Rights Act (with southern Democrats voting against and then leaving the Democratic Party over the several years immediately afterward in reaction to Kennedy’s and LBJ’s support along with that of northern Democrats)was as follows: House Dems – 153-91 in favor; House Republicans 136-35 in favor; Senate Dems 46-21 in favor, and; Senate Republicans 27 – 6 in favor. So most members of both parties supported it but the Dems controlled the White House and Congress at the time and LBJ was twisting arms to get it through. Southern Dems revolted because southern whites were not in favor of desegregation and punished the party in charge with its passage by switching to the Republican Party as LBJ predicted they would.

I would agree ideally all the Supreme Court decisions should be “correct”. Problem is, people have different opinions about what is correct. That is true with the Constitution as well as just about everything else. I am not entirely sure how you can get around that. I can’t think of a time in human history when everyone agreed on what was correct all the time. We can wish everyone had the same opinion of what was correct (boring) or that what was correct was always obvious to everyone, but then if that were the case I doubt any lawsuits would ever arrive in the Supreme Court to begin with.

We can all think of Supreme Court cases that were very difficult and where good arguments on both sides of the issue were made. I know it is comforting to think the world is always black or white and decisions always clear cut, but that simply isn’t true.

You need to check the voting record. The Republicans voted in favor of the civil rights acts and the abolition of segregation by large margins over the Democrats.

LBJ’s lamentation was because he knew the Southern Democrats voted AGAINST civil rights, and the Republicans voted IN FAVOR. The people supported these acts and showed it by their votes…for Republicans to replace the segregationist Democrats.

I stated the rest of my argument pretty clearly on the other post, but to summarize again, law is binary: true or false. The Supreme Court exists to ensure that laws are properly founded in truth–natural law. That’s their only job. The fact that they disagree and interpret the law is nothing more than a testament to human fallibility. They are supposed to settle “controversy” over interpretations by understanding and ruling in favor of whichever “interpretation” is correct. (Sorry, I use a lot of quotes.) That does not mean it’s OK for one judge to have one interpretation and for another to have a different one. If they differ, one of them is correct or they are both wrong. Their job is to find out which and rule correctly.

In the case of the Constitution, the standard against which they must judge is the founding law of the nation: All men are created equal. So they must always rule in favor of equality. If they don’t, it’s to their own discredit for allowing their “interpretation” to stand in the way of truth.

Regardless, Republicans have not always been conservative if by conservative we mean more traditional or conserving/preserving the status quo, which is the common definition of the term. Likewise Democrats have not always been liberal if by liberal we mean more open to change and less traditional approaches and more likely to be promoting change or challenging the status quo. One need only look at the Democratic Party’s stand on slavery prior to and during the civil war and Theodore Roosevelt’s stand on breaking up monopolies or protecting the environment to see that.

While the meaning of “liberal” and “conservative” over time is more or less the same, regardless of the issues of the day those carrying these labels hitch their wagon to, the parties identified with these labels can and does change.

As for the law and the constitution not being subject to interpretation, one wonders why we need a Supreme Court at all if this is true. Article III, section 2 of the constitution itself, in describing the powers of the judicial branch, states in part:

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and
Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the
United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under their Authority; – to all Cases affecting Ambassadors,
other public Ministers and Consuls; – to all Cases of
admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; – to Controversies to
which the United States shall be a Party; – to Controversies
between two or more States; – [between a State and Citizens
of another State;-]* between Citizens of different States,
- between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under
Grants of different States, [and between a State, or the Citizens
thereof;- and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.]”

How can any “controversy” arise the court would need to settle unless there were at least two conflicting interpretations of law, including possibly the Constitution itself?? Clearly the founders knew people like you and I would take different views of the law from time to time (as indeed they did themselves) and therefore these conflicting personal interpretations (i.e. “controversies”) between us as people or the various states would sometimes need to be settled in court. In other words, the courts would have to determine which interpretation of the law was correct. Being people themselves, the judges empowered to settle these cases would have their own interpretation of the law. Indeed, it is possible for two perfectly reasonable people to have two opposing but perfectly reasonable interpretations of the same text. It happens all the time. Just ask any Protestant or Catholic.

But truly, how can you have a free society and not have multiple possible interpretations of the constitution or any one of the numerous laws on the books? Anyone that insists there is only one possible interpretation of the Constitution and all the various laws in a nation with one or two million people living in it as there was at the time the constitution was signed, let alone today with more than 300 million running about, is naive in the extreme. Even strict constructionists that insist nothing should be added or subtracted from the “plain text” of the Constitution, when you get more than two or three of them in a room, differ as to the founder’s intent and the true meaning of the law in certain cases.

Sadly for you, only those who do not understand law or the Constitution believe that it is subject to interpretation.

And your characterization of history, while accurate in terms of vocabulary, is disingenuous (or at least incorrect if I’m to give you the benefit of the doubt).

True, the founders had a very “liberal” view, but the term “liberal” as applied in that context is not the same as the adulterized meaning that it has taken thanks to the “progressives” of today (another adulterized term). These characterizations are exactly what is throwing the republic into imbalance and disarray. What we should be talking about is correct and incorrect, not such meaningless and shifting designations as “liberals” and “conservatives.”

I’ll give you an example: the end of segregation in the U.S. Would you call that a liberal or a conservative movement? Based on your suggestion about the founders, I would say you’d agree that it was liberal. That said, which party led the charge to end segregation? The Republicans did, with little support and much opposition from the Democrats (see here and here. So are the Republicans or the Democrats the more liberal party?

The point is that “liberal” or “conservative” aside, the founders were correct in founding this nation as a capitalist republic. Today, “liberal” or “conservative,” those who believe that socialism has any place in the United States are incorrect.

I assure you, that the founders would not consider the ideology of today’s left to be correct. Bigger government, more government intrusion and regulation–the rejection of these is precisely the “liberal” stuff that the vision of the founders was made of.

Now, you have to pick a path, because you can’t have it both ways. Either you have to admit that you think (as Obama does) the founders were off base in founding this nation as they did, or you have to admit that you are off base in not following their vision. Surely you must admit that the ample historical record of the vision of the founders does not support the socialist vision of today’s “liberal.”

Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for you as you clearly think those that interpret the Constitution differently than you should be denied liberty. The punishment for treason is jail or death as you point out. History has certainly seen far too many people that felt those with whom they disagreed should be put to death. We don’t identify these folks as lovers of freedom. Hopefully they will never gain power in this country in spite of our commitment to taking that risk by respecting their right to express such repressive views.

Ok, so that means we are “free to interpret” that the Constitution brands all liberals as traitors which bars them from any form of public office and makes them eligible for execution as enemies of the state. Wow, I like this “freedom to interpret the Constitution” stuff!!

I would say your argument is the one that’s weak, except for the fact that you never had an argument to begin with.

Every time he produces evidence you basically come back with, “that doesn’t prove you weren’t born elsewhere”, so yes, you are demanding he prove a negative in spite of your protestations to the contrary. Besides, the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation, not the one being accused. That’s the way it works in our judicial system and that is the way it works in any logical argument. You have produced nothing indicating Obama was born anywhere other than where he says he was and all the documents produced to date claim he was. Don’t get mad at me for using your kind of logic on you. If the burden of proof isn’t going to be on me, I can accuse you of being born on the moon if I want and under your kind of thinking it is up to you to prove you weren’t, at least if you are to be logically consistent. Hey, you haven’t produced anything showing you weren’t born on the moon. Doesn’t that seem a bit suspicious to everyone???

I may question your reasoning, but I have never questioned your belief in the Constitution or love of country. Is it too much to ask you return the favor? Yes, I differ with you on solutions to problems we are facing, but that does not translate into me wanting to “throw out the Constitution” and you loving it more than those you differ with. The freedom to interpret the Constitution for ourselves is, shock, protected by the Constitution itself. Differences of opinion do not automatically translate into hatred for or indifference toward our form of government or Constitution. Saying so only proves how weak your arguments are.

1- I didn’t run for President. So if you want to sue me for voter fraud (along with Obama’s buddies at ACORN), go ahead. I can provide proof of my citizenship and eligibility to vote, which does not have a “natural-born” requirement. So sue me. I’ll provide the proof, and you’ll look like an even bigger idiot.

Further, while I did vote, I’m not still voting. What you’re suggesting would be like trying to remove an illegitimate President AFTER he’s already out of office. I already voted, so any attempt to prove it illegitimate are useless at best. Obama is still the President, so it’s perfectly legitimate to require his verification of eligibility, which (as you conveniently neglect to address) he still has not done.

Brilliant.

Wow, demanding people prove a negative saves so much time. No need to come up with valid arguments. I think you guys are on to something here.