The Constitution is Utterly Worthless

The Supreme court is a little different, explain to me why a judge can shut down a proposition that people voted for?

Thank you. But, typical that two doctors may not agree. Science is in the same boat as law; subject to opinion. I liker yours.

@lebronksi

no he doesnt, 

Because, quite simply, that is the current status of state law. Which is why the Supreme Court exists, as the Constitution defines; to be the final arbiter if either litigant wants to take the case to its extreme and can justify its elevation, which is their given right.

The Constitution, particularly Article III, was written in 1788, compounded and confused by two centuries of language drift. It must be understood as written, not as twisted by modern language. That is the true consideration of originalism, my friend. Think like an eighteenth century lawyer, not a 21st bus-full of them.

um no it shouldnt be the law of the land that a proper proposition was denied by a judge for bullshit reasons

true, so why do we allow 21st century interpretations of it?

For that judge to be there: you need to have won a majority of electoral votes, and a majority of senate seats. To override the law, you also need that to happen 5 times.

It doesn’t happen in a vaccuum.

But remember - not agreeing with you, is not an indication of them being legally wrong.

You could argue that appointing unqualified Federal judges and forcing through as many as possible is undermining the judiciary. But that’s Republicans.

You could argue that holding up an appointment to try and ensure your party gets to make a key appointment, or that ramming through a judge with a minimum of review in the days before an election is also part of the problem - again Republicans.

You could argue that it’s unfair that the judiciary leans 6/3 In favour of the party that has won the popular vote in a presidential election once since 1988. Again Republicans.

You could argue that a senate that represents a minority of the US population should not get to appoint 6/9ths of the court; but that’s still Republicans.

Thus, the existence of higher courts of appeal than your bullshit judge. The system works, and is adequately documented, and when it doesn't work, it has defined the means of change. That it happens outside your little defined world of bullshit and its schedule is just the way it is. The Constitution was not constructed in a day. Nor are its functions. it's called patience, because men are not better angels, and until they are - and that includes you, my friend...

"We?" Who's "we", you and the bullshit?

Well, you were the one talking about the Supreme Court and the US Constitution so the context should be Federal.  So far, you have not mentioned any laws written by state legislature although I'm sure plenty of them have violated state constitutions, too.

We’re the rules followed? If not, then we have an illegitimate decision which is very concerning. If they were, then we get the government we deserve.

these rules are dumb, a judge should have this power

have they? how is this law unconstituional

no, americans

you say that the judge needs to be there by the senate but then say that the senate represents a minority of the US population

why is democracy not present in the US? What part of the proposition 187 was illegal

I'm American, for 400 years; before America was America. Nope, your routine does not describe me, so don't include me in that bitter group who read the Constitution with a blindfold.

Do you mean a judge shouldn’t have this power?

Honestly it doesn’t matter, your statement makes no sense either way. If you’re saying a judge should have this power then they already do. If you’re saying a judge shouldn’t have this power then who should? A politician?

Like I already said, someone is going to have this power and that someone will always have the ability to make an unjust choice. That’s not a flaw in the system, that’s a flaw in humanity. Instead of complaining about what you don’t like, purpose an actual solution.

how about the voters? this was a referendum,not a bill

i will because the Constitution has zero right to be used against Americans, wouldnt you agree?

If those Americans do not abide by the law, yes, the Constitution can and should be used against them. The Constitution is THE legal standard against which human action is either compliant, or not. There is no excuse, ever, for lawlessness, even if the government is not abiding by its precepts. The means to correct the government by the people by peaceful means is demonstrated and ought to be followed, always.

I also said a lot of other things, all of which you appear to have ignored.

The problem is that I don’t think you are entirely sure how the constitution works or why.

Specifically; if someone makes a law somewhere, or challenges someone’s actions; there has to be some method by which who is right can be determine.

This is called the court system. 

To be absolutely fair, in federal matters, there is a process of appeals, and a system in place to allow challenges so that one judge is not solely responsible for far-reaching decisions. 

This is the federal circuit and appeal process.

The appeals cannot go on forever: so for any legal challenge there needs to be a final level at which a ruling can be appealed.

This is the Supreme Court.

In any system of government, at all, in any way shape or form; you need someone at that final level of appeal: someone who is able to decide which side is valid.

If voters pass a rule that violates some explicit part of the constitution - who exactly would decide that? 

Imagine that judges are now only allowed to invalidate lass that are explicitly part of the constitution.

If that judge overstepped and decided that something was against the constitution - but it wasn’t: who would make that determination?

If you gave the decision to someone else, what’s to stop them making a bad decision?

The fundamental error you make, is you are operating under the premise that  a system of laws in a democracy can operate without ultimately falling down to some partisan making decisions.

If things were solely down to democratic votes; then the people who decide what the constitution means are politicians, and the constitution means whatever the people can be convinced it means.

To make sure the laws are stable, you ideally want arbiters that are as impartial as possible. That generally mean lifetime appointments - because you don’t want judgements based on what keeps you popular as opposed to are correct.

You want elected representatives to chose and have the ability to remove if necessary these judges.

Finally, to make sure that what the constitution means, and what the overall law of the land cannot be overridden by a simply majority When one side sweeps power, you want to make fundamental changes, and the ability to purge political roadblocks to be hard to do just by winning a majority of votes.

All of those things are true in the current system.

The ruling made on Prop 187 went to federal court where it was decided based on existing common law precedent that the federal government sets immigration law. It was going through the court system when Gray Davis won a state wide democratic election - and pulled the challenge to the case - essentially removing people 187.

So the democratically elected governor was responsible for subverting the will of the people.

If it has gone on, and was upheld; then the reason it would have failed - despite having the public vote for it - was that the publicly voted for a law was itself not legal as per the understood precedents of common law.

Because immigration is under federal control, in order to keep consistent rules across all states - then the people of California did not have the power to make that determination. Instead they needed to get together with a majority of other states and pass federal law (rather than state law) to make it happen.

how did they not abide by the law?

Who is "they?" To me, anyone violating the law, local, state, federal, is in violation of the Constitution. Ramshutu's #52 spells out what that is so; no need to repeat what he said.

no he doesnt spell it out, how does the referendum go against the Constitution? Ramhustu is trying to argue that America is inheritably bureaucratic and doesnt fall into the will of the people

The constitution is only as valuable or worthless as the people who are tasked with its interpretation. People who believe that it stands in the way of or  limits what they think should be the law, rule on and interpret the constitution to fit their narrative. The constitution can say what ever you want it to if you are a political  activist sitting on the bench. Get enough political activists to sit on the bench and the constitution becomes worthless. The real danger is people don't realize that activism is a two way street.  You literally fuck yourself by approving of activists sitting on the bench, it will come back to bite you in the ass. Same goes for changing rules in congress to push your agenda, that to will come back to bite you in the ass. You want strict constitutionalists on the bench who don't give a shit about your feelings. The constitution says what it says. That's why you don't have to be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court you don't even have to have a formal education. That's how clear and understandable the constitution is. It is lawyers who go to extreme lengths  to make you think it  doesn't say what it says.

Oh, but he does. He's told you that you misinterpret how the Constitution works, thus arriving at your conclusion that it doesn't work. You totally misunderstand that the Supreme Court is the final straw in interpretation of the Constitution, not Congress, and not the Executive. Helps to read the Constitution for what it says, not how some yahoo interprets it. For example, something as simple as the first amendment. The Constitution does not say there is separation between Church and State. Nor did Madison ever say that. In fact, Madison argued that there are intersections when the two are after the same ideals.

What? Huh?

No.

I’m arguing that there must be some ultimate arbiter of laws legality; and that the constitution provides the power for this arbiters, and provides for their appointment through democratic means, with democratic processes of removal should their positions be abused.

The way the will of the people is followed; is through a representative federal republic that appoints judges based on democratically elected individuals.

I also believe I defended the constitutions reasoning - that such an arbiter must exist and your idea that things have to be expressly against the constitution is still clearly a usable; and that the person should In a position that they need not be forced into making popular decisions in order to keep their job - that’s for senators and the house.

In this respect - the judges having this much power was the intent.

As I said originally, the only time this becomes an issue is if one party tries to game the system and force through unqualified or overtly partisan judges, including through shenanigans; because that lends to a system that judges are definitely making bad decisions for political power,

no he didnt, he proved nothing

You  may disagree with Ramshutu and  the Constitution's text - and it is not appropriate to interpret it however you wish because that style of thinking is exactly why you think "the Constitution is utterly worthless." It is so because you make it so, yourself, so your nemesis is in the mirror facing you daily. Need I remind you your nemesis will not change until you do? It is no comfort that so many agree with you; they don't get it, either.