No, this is “messageboard”. I agree with the interpretation that it, too, should be free from govt interference, but that does require interpretation. There is no mention of messageboards in the constitution, not a single one.
In fact, by a plain reading of the 1st, it is only congress who is forbidden from acting against speech, there is not a mention of the executive branch. It is only further interpretation that means that speech may not be restricted by executive order. In fact, we’ve interpreted it to the point where nearly any entity that receives any sort of taxpayer money can be held to that standard to the point where colleges get sued if they won’t rent a white supremacist a lecture hall.
Is any of that in the plain text?
No, that’s not it, maybe your confusion comes from jumping to unsupported conclusions? Maybe it comes from incomplete and inaccurate readings of your debate opponent’s posts? You missed or ignored the part where I said “and it were upheld by the supreme court which he appointed and was confirmed by the same congress,”
Now, I’ve read the constitution, but I must admit that I have not encountered the clause that magically prevents congress from passing unconstitutional laws. Could you cite that, please?
I’ve read it. Still not seeing what physically prevents congress from passing unconstitutional laws.
By precedent, we have judicial review, but even that requires an interpretation to even be valid, there is no “plain text” reading of the constitution that gives the court these powers.
Assuming that you agree with judicial review at all, then you agree that the supreme court is the only thing that can prevent congress from passing unconstitutional laws (and if you don’t agree, then you argue that there is nothing to prevent congress from passing unconstitutional laws). And that is my entire point. It is the supreme court who would be tasked with finding the law elevating the president’s powers to be unconstitutional, the supreme court that is currently being added to by judicial activists with far more loyalty to their party and ideology than to that 200 year old piece of parchment.
You and I would agree with any laws extending the president’s power in that way to be unconstitutional, just as you and I would agree that laws limiting the powers of free speech on an internet messageboard would be, but there may be others who disagree with both of us, and those others could well be appointed to the supreme court.
Now, a law that says “Trump is King!” and all that entails is egregious and unlikely, and is extended here only as an extreme hypothetical that we could both easily agree is unconstitutional. What would be more likely would be laws or executive orders passed or signed in response to some crisis, that extends the executive’s powers in ways that breach the interpretation of the constitution that you and I would both agree to be against. But, just because you and I both would agree that elections should still take place and elected congresspersons should be seated and presidents sworn in, if congressional or executive action prevented that, what would be the remedy? If sedition laws were enacted making it a crime to criticize the president, where would we turn? Those with standing would sue, and the case would end up in front of the supreme court.
If the supreme court upholds the law or order, does that not mean that it is, by your very own definition, constitutional?
The only thing unproductive is when someone makes assumptions as to knowledge and motivations in order to divert the discussion.
Done. Unless you can quote me the part that actually prevents congress from passing unconstitutional laws, I will take any other comments you make as to my ignorance on this matter as just further attempts to divert from productive discussion.
Now as to some questions that you dodged by commenting on your assumptions as to my knowledge and intellect rather than the discussion at hand: You say you are against the courts finding for fetal personhood, but you are for the legislature passing laws outlawing abortion, which I would assume that you would like to see upheld by the courts. What compelling interest could the government have to regulate a woman’s medical decisions if it is not for recognizing the fetus as having rights that overrule the rights of the mother? (And really, in that case, with fetal personhood upheld by a right wing activist SCOTUS, abortion isn’t just murder, it’s capital murder. Premeditated and conspiratorial. If fetuses are people, then the doctor and women who participate in the process should be eligible for the death penalty. Miscarriages should be treated as negligent homicide at the least, investigated and if there is anything at all that the mother did that reduced her chances of carrying the child to term, should be prosecuted, same as if an infant dies of neglect under one’s care.)
You also dodge the question on Heller et al. What is the Heller case (and the others like it), but Republicans disagreeing with the laws passed by their duly elected representatives, and going to the unelected judiciary to overturn those laws?
So, you propose a dilemma repeatedly. Do we choose the judge who rules based on the plain reading of the text, or do we choose judges based on their desire to interpret the text in a way that produces the best outcomes?
Well, that’s an entirely false dilemma, as everyone will be ruling based on what they think produces the best outcomes, even if that outcome is that the process was followed. (It’s also a false dilemma because it makes the spurious claim that your side will only nominate judges that will strictly interpret the Constitution according to the plain text, while the other side will nominate judges that ignore the Constitution to get the results they want.)
What I find to be dishonest in some of these judges, however, is their claims that they are only following the plain text, while interpreting that text to get the outcomes that they desire.
When there is a 5-4 split, do you really think that the 4 dissenters are confused because they just haven’t read the Constitution? Is that true even when the Republicans are in the dissent?
There is quite a bit of slack in the interpretation of the Constitution, quite an array of what is permissible, which is the entire reason why we have people tasked with interpreting it. I would agree that there are limits to that, but within the limits, there is lots of room for interpretation. I would rather have a judge that will admit that they interpret the Constitution within those limits for the purposes of having better outcomes, and know where they are coming from when they decide what outcomes they consider to be better, rather than a judge that justifies making decisions that have poor outcomes by falsely claiming to have followed the only interpretation the text allows.
Doh!