Scalia died

[Jeremy E.]

Which, I have to say, has always struck me as odd.  Amendments are, to me, the proof that the original document can be amended.  That the original document may need to be reinterpreted or changed. And amendments can be repealed, of course, as well.  So, how can an "originalist" say that the Constitution must be read exactly as it was written, with no interpretation?

I'm sorry to make this comparison, but it makes me think of fundamentalists who insist that their Book is true in every single word, and yet do not observe the interdictions against tattoos, shellfish, mixing of fabrics, etc.

Originalist see a big difference between using the amendment process to change the constitution and tying words into pretzels to find hidden penumbras within the original document.

That's a bit of a straw man, don't you think?  It's hard to have respect for your side, when you so willfully misrepresent the other side.  It is clearly not some sort of illuminati plot to try to understand how the original document was intended, and to recognize that perhaps there were blind spots in the founders' field of vision that made them word things in a way that are a bit open to interpretation now.

the framers* themselves got to see the words of their constitution changed from what was originally intended and were quite upset. This upset Madison and Jefferson so much that Jefferson resigned from secretary of state for it

Jefferson was not a framer. He was serving in France at the time. He actually referred to the framers sarcastically as 'demigods'.

I know, but Madison was the father of the constitution as well as Jeffersons right hand man

[seattlecyclone]

Which, I have to say, has always struck me as odd.  Amendments are, to me, the proof that the original document can be amended.  That the original document may need to be reinterpreted or changed. And amendments can be repealed, of course, as well.  So, how can an "originalist" say that the Constitution must be read exactly as it was written, with no interpretation?

Here's my take on this. The Constitution was an agreement between the states to give up some of their power. Indeed, the very reason we call them "states" in the first place is that they were essentially sovereign nations before the Constitution was ratified. The intent was to have them keep much of their sovereignty afterwards as well. They put in place a limited federal government, with a certain enumerated set of powers: create a common currency, raise a common army, ensure commerce could happen across state lines, run a post office, and a few other things.

They knew the original document might need to be changed, so they put in an amendment process. However since they knew amendments would often involve the states giving up more power to the federal government, they didn't make it easy: 75% of states would need to agree before a new amendment could come into effect.

This is the procedure we should use if we want our federal government to have additional powers. We shouldn't "reinterpret" words that are already well-understood when we don't think an amendment would pass. The whole point was that the federal government should not gain additional powers from a simple majority vote; this should require a broad nationwide consensus and deliberation in all of the state capitals.

It's wrong to say that there's "no interpretation" allowed when reading from an originalist viewpoint though. Language is fuzzy. Anytime you read a sentence you have no choice but to interpret it one way or another. I would characterize the originalist viewpoint as being of the opinion that the Constitution should generally be interpreted narrowly, since the framers were quite leery about giving too much power to the federal government. They're the ones who wrote it, so when you interpret where the limits are it should only be natural to refer back to what they envisioned.

Again, that doesn't mean that change is impermissible or wrong, it just needs to be accomplished in the right way: through the amendment process.

[Jeremy E.]

Which, I have to say, has always struck me as odd.  Amendments are, to me, the proof that the original document can be amended.  That the original document may need to be reinterpreted or changed. And amendments can be repealed, of course, as well.  So, how can an "originalist" say that the Constitution must be read exactly as it was written, with no interpretation?

Here's my take on this. The Constitution was an agreement between the states to give up some of their power. Indeed, the very reason we call them "states" in the first place is that they were essentially sovereign nations before the Constitution was ratified. The intent was to have them keep much of their sovereignty afterwards as well. They put in place a limited federal government, with a certain enumerated set of powers: create a common currency, raise a common army, ensure commerce could happen across state lines, run a post office, and a few other things.

They knew the original document might need to be changed, so they put in an amendment process. However since they knew amendments would often involve the states giving up more power to the federal government, they didn't make it easy: 75% of states would need to agree before a new amendment could come into effect.

This is the procedure we should use if we want our federal government to have additional powers. We shouldn't "reinterpret" words that are already well-understood when we don't think an amendment would pass. The whole point was that the federal government should not gain additional powers from a simple majority vote; this should require a broad nationwide consensus and deliberation in all of the state capitals.

It's wrong to say that there's "no interpretation" allowed when reading from an originalist viewpoint though. Language is fuzzy. Anytime you read a sentence you have no choice but to interpret it one way or another. I would characterize the originalist viewpoint as being of the opinion that the Constitution should generally be interpreted narrowly, since the framers were quite leery about giving too much power to the federal government. They're the ones who wrote it, so when you interpret where the limits are it should only be natural to refer back to what they envisioned.

Again, that doesn't mean that change is impermissible or wrong, it just needs to be accomplished in the right way: through the amendment process.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but another big reason for amendments is that it wouldn't of gotten ratified without the first 10 amendments (or bill of rights), and also I believe it only needs 2/3 vote not 3/4

[sol]

I believe it only needs 2/3 vote not 3/4

In this case, your beliefs are objectively wrong.  Constitutional amendment require 3/4 of the states to ratify.  38/50.

Sadly, the American South contains a voting block of 13 contiguous states that still oppose civil rights and all forms of social progress, which means they can derail any amendment.

The constitution is set up to make this nearly impossible once progressive states started to economically thrive and grow.   As a result, so called "conservative" states are mostly low-population states, which means they really only need about 9% of the US population (50.1% of 13 rural red states) to block an amendment.  Americans haven't had 91% agreement on anything in our entire history as a nation.

[Jeremy E.]

I believe it only needs 2/3 vote not 3/4

In this case, your beliefs are objectively wrong.  Constitutional amendment require 3/4 of the states to ratify.  38/50.

Sadly, the American South contains a voting block of 13 contiguous states that still oppose civil rights and all forms of social progress, which means they can derail any amendment.

The constitution is set up to make this nearly impossible once progressive states started to economically thrive and grow.   As a result, so called "conservative" states are mostly low-population states, which means they really only need about 9% of the US population (50.1% of 13 rural red states) to block an amendment.  Americans haven't had 91% agreement on anything in our entire history as a nation.

Oh, I suppose it needs multiple votes, it needs to get 2/3 vote in both houses of congress and then it needs to get 3/4 of the states.

[dramaman]

Which, I have to say, has always struck me as odd.  Amendments are, to me, the proof that the original document can be amended.  That the original document may need to be reinterpreted or changed. And amendments can be repealed, of course, as well.  So, how can an "originalist" say that the Constitution must be read exactly as it was written, with no interpretation?

I'm sorry to make this comparison, but it makes me think of fundamentalists who insist that their Book is true in every single word, and yet do not observe the interdictions against tattoos, shellfish, mixing of fabrics, etc.

Originalist see a big difference between using the amendment process to change the constitution and tying words into pretzels to find hidden penumbras within the original document.

That's a bit of a straw man, don't you think?  It's hard to have respect for your side, when you so willfully misrepresent the other side.  It is clearly not some sort of illuminati plot to try to understand how the original document was intended, and to recognize that perhaps there were blind spots in the founders' field of vision that made them word things in a way that are a bit open to interpretation now.

the framers* themselves got to see the words of their constitution changed from what was originally intended and were quite upset. This upset Madison and Jefferson so much that Jefferson resigned from secretary of state for it

Jefferson was not a framer. He was serving in France at the time. He actually referred to the framers sarcastically as 'demigods'.

I know, but Madison was the father of the constitution as well as Jeffersons right hand man

I'm not sure why the latter has any relevance. Jefferson had nothing to do with the Constitution. His reaction to its wording is simply irrelevant. If we're simply naming names, Patrick Henry was against the entire Constitution itself, but that is also irrelevant in regards to any changes that took place over the crafting of the document itself.

[dramaman]

Here's my take on this. The Constitution was an agreement between the states to give up some of their power. Indeed, the very reason we call them "states" in the first place is that they were essentially sovereign nations before the Constitution was ratified. The intent was to have them keep much of their sovereignty afterwards as well. They put in place a limited federal government, with a certain enumerated set of powers: create a common currency, raise a common army, ensure commerce could happen across state lines, run a post office, and a few other things.

Keep in mind that there is a reason the preamble starts with "We the People" and not "We the States". The latter phrasing was considered and ultimately rejected in favor of the former because it was believed that the states would no longer be sovereign and that the power that the federal government would possess would come from the very people themselves and not from the states. The previous Articles of Confederation had preserved state sovereignty and that was determined to be a total failure.

[seattlecyclone]

Which, I have to say, has always struck me as odd.  Amendments are, to me, the proof that the original document can be amended.  That the original document may need to be reinterpreted or changed. And amendments can be repealed, of course, as well.  So, how can an "originalist" say that the Constitution must be read exactly as it was written, with no interpretation?

I'm sorry to make this comparison, but it makes me think of fundamentalists who insist that their Book is true in every single word, and yet do not observe the interdictions against tattoos, shellfish, mixing of fabrics, etc.

Originalist see a big difference between using the amendment process to change the constitution and tying words into pretzels to find hidden penumbras within the original document.

That's a bit of a straw man, don't you think?  It's hard to have respect for your side, when you so willfully misrepresent the other side.  It is clearly not some sort of illuminati plot to try to understand how the original document was intended, and to recognize that perhaps there were blind spots in the founders' field of vision that made them word things in a way that are a bit open to interpretation now. 

I don't think it's as much of a straw man as you might make it out to be. Take the interstate commerce clause, for example. A plain reading of that might lead you to believe that Congress has the power to make rules that regulate the movement of goods and services across state lines. Importantly, the word "interstate" was put in there for a reason, namely to make clear that Congress did not have the power to regulate commercial activity that occurs entirely within one state.

And yet...in Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court ruled that the interstate commerce clause gave Congress the ability to prohibit a farmer from growing wheat for his own use, if that wheat would put him over the limit Congress instituted in their nationwide price control legislation. They acknowledged that this particular wheat would never cross state lines, or even really be involved in "commerce" at all since it would be consumed in the same place it was grown. However they ruled that if everyone did this, it could have an effect on the nationwide price of wheat, and so Congress therefore had the power to prohibit it.

This ruling, and others following it, changed this clause of the Constitution from a limited one to an essentially limitless one. Most anything you do could affect national market prices if enough other people did it. Under that interpretation, what behavior can't Congress restrict? I really doubt that's what the framers intended. The Supreme Court has only recently started to rein it in a little bit, such as in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. This ruling upheld the legality of the penalty for failing to buy health insurance, but made clear that the Commerce Clause does not allow Congress to require people purchase a product from a company. Instead it holds that Congress can use its taxation power to charge a reasonable tax for failing to buy this insurance. The net effect is the same as far as Obamacare is concerned, but it sets forth an important precedent that the Commerce Clause does indeed have limits.

[Kris]

Which, I have to say, has always struck me as odd.  Amendments are, to me, the proof that the original document can be amended.  That the original document may need to be reinterpreted or changed. And amendments can be repealed, of course, as well.  So, how can an "originalist" say that the Constitution must be read exactly as it was written, with no interpretation?

I'm sorry to make this comparison, but it makes me think of fundamentalists who insist that their Book is true in every single word, and yet do not observe the interdictions against tattoos, shellfish, mixing of fabrics, etc.

Originalist see a big difference between using the amendment process to change the constitution and tying words into pretzels to find hidden penumbras within the original document.

That's a bit of a straw man, don't you think?  It's hard to have respect for your side, when you so willfully misrepresent the other side.  It is clearly not some sort of illuminati plot to try to understand how the original document was intended, and to recognize that perhaps there were blind spots in the founders' field of vision that made them word things in a way that are a bit open to interpretation now.

Actually, your comment about an Illuminati plot is a much better example of a strawman or Reductio ad absurdum than my comment about penumbras.  My point is that we have a process to amend the constitution.  It is not an easy feat by any means, but it was intended to be difficult to ensure we don't change it on the fly as the mood strikes us.

Perhaps you could explain where your choice of wording when you chose "hidden penumbras," then.  Because I was not trying to do that, I honestly saw that phrase as you implying that the other side was looking for hidden meanings in some sort of DaVinci Code kind of way.  Could you please explain what you were implying, then? 

[seattlecyclone]

Here's my take on this. The Constitution was an agreement between the states to give up some of their power. Indeed, the very reason we call them "states" in the first place is that they were essentially sovereign nations before the Constitution was ratified. The intent was to have them keep much of their sovereignty afterwards as well. They put in place a limited federal government, with a certain enumerated set of powers: create a common currency, raise a common army, ensure commerce could happen across state lines, run a post office, and a few other things.

Keep in mind that there is a reason the preamble starts with "We the People" and not "We the States". The latter phrasing was considered and ultimately rejected in favor of the former because it was believed that the states would no longer be sovereign and that the power that the federal government would possess would come from the very people themselves and not from the states. The previous Articles of Confederation had preserved state sovereignty and that was determined to be a total failure.

Yes, the Articles of Confederation were unworkable because any change required total unanimity between the states. The framers of the Constitution settled on three-fourths as a reasonable middle ground between a simple majority and unanimous consent. The main point was the same: we shouldn't change the fundamental relationship between the states and the federal government without broad buy-in between the states. One state shouldn't be able to stand in the way of progress, but if more than a quarter of states do...perhaps that's an issue we shouldn't be handling at a federal level at this time.

[Jeremy E.]

Which, I have to say, has always struck me as odd.  Amendments are, to me, the proof that the original document can be amended.  That the original document may need to be reinterpreted or changed. And amendments can be repealed, of course, as well.  So, how can an "originalist" say that the Constitution must be read exactly as it was written, with no interpretation?

I'm sorry to make this comparison, but it makes me think of fundamentalists who insist that their Book is true in every single word, and yet do not observe the interdictions against tattoos, shellfish, mixing of fabrics, etc.

Originalist see a big difference between using the amendment process to change the constitution and tying words into pretzels to find hidden penumbras within the original document.

That's a bit of a straw man, don't you think?  It's hard to have respect for your side, when you so willfully misrepresent the other side.  It is clearly not some sort of illuminati plot to try to understand how the original document was intended, and to recognize that perhaps there were blind spots in the founders' field of vision that made them word things in a way that are a bit open to interpretation now.

the framers* themselves got to see the words of their constitution changed from what was originally intended and were quite upset. This upset Madison and Jefferson so much that Jefferson resigned from secretary of state for it

Jefferson was not a framer. He was serving in France at the time. He actually referred to the framers sarcastically as 'demigods'.

I know, but Madison was the father of the constitution as well as Jeffersons right hand man

I'm not sure why the latter has any relevance. Jefferson had nothing to do with the Constitution. His reaction to its wording is simply irrelevant. If we're simply naming names, Patrick Henry was against the entire Constitution itself, but that is also irrelevant in regards to any changes that took place over the crafting of the document itself.

Jefferson wrote letters to Madison throughout his ambassadorship to France, but we can just use Madison, he was very upset when people tried to say the constitution can mean this, and he's just like, NO I wrote this thing and didn't mean that, and then Washington would say, well I believe it does mean that and I'll listen to this guy, and then Madison would get more pissed.

[sol]

One state shouldn't be able to stand in the way of progress, but if more than a quarter of states do...perhaps that's an issue we shouldn't be handling at a federal level at this time.

Except, as I stated above, it only takes 9% of the country to block an amendment today, not 25%.  Voting by state, rather than by population, gives outsized power to rural red states with antiquated ideas.

[Jeremy E.]

Here's my take on this. The Constitution was an agreement between the states to give up some of their power. Indeed, the very reason we call them "states" in the first place is that they were essentially sovereign nations before the Constitution was ratified. The intent was to have them keep much of their sovereignty afterwards as well. They put in place a limited federal government, with a certain enumerated set of powers: create a common currency, raise a common army, ensure commerce could happen across state lines, run a post office, and a few other things.

Keep in mind that there is a reason the preamble starts with "We the People" and not "We the States". The latter phrasing was considered and ultimately rejected in favor of the former because it was believed that the states would no longer be sovereign and that the power that the federal government would possess would come from the very people themselves and not from the states. The previous Articles of Confederation had preserved state sovereignty and that was determined to be a total failure.

The states were meant to have equal rights as the federal government and to create most of their own rules. The main reason the articles of confederation was a failure is because they couldn't tax people or get any revenue.

[dramaman]

Which, I have to say, has always struck me as odd.  Amendments are, to me, the proof that the original document can be amended.  That the original document may need to be reinterpreted or changed. And amendments can be repealed, of course, as well.  So, how can an "originalist" say that the Constitution must be read exactly as it was written, with no interpretation?

I'm sorry to make this comparison, but it makes me think of fundamentalists who insist that their Book is true in every single word, and yet do not observe the interdictions against tattoos, shellfish, mixing of fabrics, etc.

Originalist see a big difference between using the amendment process to change the constitution and tying words into pretzels to find hidden penumbras within the original document.

That's a bit of a straw man, don't you think?  It's hard to have respect for your side, when you so willfully misrepresent the other side.  It is clearly not some sort of illuminati plot to try to understand how the original document was intended, and to recognize that perhaps there were blind spots in the founders' field of vision that made them word things in a way that are a bit open to interpretation now.

the framers* themselves got to see the words of their constitution changed from what was originally intended and were quite upset. This upset Madison and Jefferson so much that Jefferson resigned from secretary of state for it

Jefferson was not a framer. He was serving in France at the time. He actually referred to the framers sarcastically as 'demigods'.

I know, but Madison was the father of the constitution as well as Jeffersons right hand man

I'm not sure why the latter has any relevance. Jefferson had nothing to do with the Constitution. His reaction to its wording is simply irrelevant. If we're simply naming names, Patrick Henry was against the entire Constitution itself, but that is also irrelevant in regards to any changes that took place over the crafting of the document itself.

Jefferson wrote letters to Hamilton throughout his ambassadorship to France, but we can just use Hamilton, he was very upset when people tried to say the constitution can mean this, and he's just like, NO I wrote this thing and didn't mean that, and then Washington would say, well I believe it does mean that and I'll listen to this guy, and then Hamilton would get more pissed.

Umm, I thought you were focusing on Madison and Jefferson. Now you've switched over to Hamilton. Regardless, you've actually reinforced my overall viewpoint. Whether you are talking about Madison, Hamilton or Washington, the Constitution was the ultimately the product of a committee and NO SINGLE PERSON could claim to have the authoritative interpretation and indeed there were competing interpretations.

[dramaman]

Here's my take on this. The Constitution was an agreement between the states to give up some of their power. Indeed, the very reason we call them "states" in the first place is that they were essentially sovereign nations before the Constitution was ratified. The intent was to have them keep much of their sovereignty afterwards as well. They put in place a limited federal government, with a certain enumerated set of powers: create a common currency, raise a common army, ensure commerce could happen across state lines, run a post office, and a few other things.

Keep in mind that there is a reason the preamble starts with "We the People" and not "We the States". The latter phrasing was considered and ultimately rejected in favor of the former because it was believed that the states would no longer be sovereign and that the power that the federal government would possess would come from the very people themselves and not from the states. The previous Articles of Confederation had preserved state sovereignty and that was determined to be a total failure.

The states were meant to have equal rights as the federal government and to create most of their own rules. The main reason the articles of confederation was a failure is because they couldn't tax people or get any revenue.

No the states were not meant to have equal rights as the federal government. Nowhere is that in the constitution. Instead it lays out what powers the Federal Government has. Ideally the 10th amendment does reserve every other non-enumerated power for the states, but any observance of that amendment was effectively neutered a long, long, long time ago.

[seattlecyclone]

One state shouldn't be able to stand in the way of progress, but if more than a quarter of states do...perhaps that's an issue we shouldn't be handling at a federal level at this time.

Except, as I stated above, it only takes 9% of the country to block an amendment today, not 25%.  Voting by state, rather than by population, gives outsized power to rural red states with antiquated ideas.

Perhaps it does, but that's the system that we live under. If we want to change the system we should follow the procedure that our predecessors agreed to when they set up the system. Meanwhile there's nothing stopping those of us who don't have "antiquated ideas" from enacting our preferred policies at the state level. The US is a big place with lots of diversity. Allowing different states to have different laws that are tailored to their own electorate ("antiquated" or not) is a feature, not a bug!

[Jeremy E.]

Which, I have to say, has always struck me as odd.  Amendments are, to me, the proof that the original document can be amended.  That the original document may need to be reinterpreted or changed. And amendments can be repealed, of course, as well.  So, how can an "originalist" say that the Constitution must be read exactly as it was written, with no interpretation?

I'm sorry to make this comparison, but it makes me think of fundamentalists who insist that their Book is true in every single word, and yet do not observe the interdictions against tattoos, shellfish, mixing of fabrics, etc.

Originalist see a big difference between using the amendment process to change the constitution and tying words into pretzels to find hidden penumbras within the original document.

That's a bit of a straw man, don't you think?  It's hard to have respect for your side, when you so willfully misrepresent the other side.  It is clearly not some sort of illuminati plot to try to understand how the original document was intended, and to recognize that perhaps there were blind spots in the founders' field of vision that made them word things in a way that are a bit open to interpretation now.

the framers* themselves got to see the words of their constitution changed from what was originally intended and were quite upset. This upset Madison and Jefferson so much that Jefferson resigned from secretary of state for it

Jefferson was not a framer. He was serving in France at the time. He actually referred to the framers sarcastically as 'demigods'.

I know, but Madison was the father of the constitution as well as Jeffersons right hand man

I'm not sure why the latter has any relevance. Jefferson had nothing to do with the Constitution. His reaction to its wording is simply irrelevant. If we're simply naming names, Patrick Henry was against the entire Constitution itself, but that is also irrelevant in regards to any changes that took place over the crafting of the document itself.

Jefferson wrote letters to Hamilton throughout his ambassadorship to France, but we can just use Hamilton, he was very upset when people tried to say the constitution can mean this, and he's just like, NO I wrote this thing and didn't mean that, and then Washington would say, well I believe it does mean that and I'll listen to this guy, and then Hamilton would get more pissed.

Umm, I thought you were focusing on Madison and Jefferson. Now you've switched over to Hamilton. Regardless, you've actually reinforced my overall viewpoint. Whether you are talking about Madison, Hamilton or Washington, the Constitution was the ultimately the product of a committee and NO SINGLE PERSON could claim to have the authoritative interpretation and indeed there were competing interpretations.

I wrote Hamilton instead of Madison on accident, everywhere it says Hamilton in that post should say Madison. Madison is known as the father of the constitution, the plans he laid out during the constitutional convention are the main framework of the constitution

[davisgang90]

Which, I have to say, has always struck me as odd.  Amendments are, to me, the proof that the original document can be amended.  That the original document may need to be reinterpreted or changed. And amendments can be repealed, of course, as well.  So, how can an "originalist" say that the Constitution must be read exactly as it was written, with no interpretation?

I'm sorry to make this comparison, but it makes me think of fundamentalists who insist that their Book is true in every single word, and yet do not observe the interdictions against tattoos, shellfish, mixing of fabrics, etc.

Originalist see a big difference between using the amendment process to change the constitution and tying words into pretzels to find hidden penumbras within the original document.

That's a bit of a straw man, don't you think?  It's hard to have respect for your side, when you so willfully misrepresent the other side.  It is clearly not some sort of illuminati plot to try to understand how the original document was intended, and to recognize that perhaps there were blind spots in the founders' field of vision that made them word things in a way that are a bit open to interpretation now.

Actually, your comment about an Illuminati plot is a much better example of a strawman or Reductio ad absurdum than my comment about penumbras.  My point is that we have a process to amend the constitution.  It is not an easy feat by any means, but it was intended to be difficult to ensure we don't change it on the fly as the mood strikes us.

Perhaps you could explain where your choice of wording when you chose "hidden penumbras," then.  Because I was not trying to do that, I honestly saw that phrase as you implying that the other side was looking for hidden meanings in some sort of DaVinci Code kind of way.  Could you please explain what you were implying, then?

Penumbra is a word used often in legal proceedings.  pe·num·bra
pəˈnəmbrə/
noun
3
:  a body of rights held to be guaranteed by implication in a civil constitution

My usage wasn't meant to be scary or conspiracy oriented. 

[Kris]

Which, I have to say, has always struck me as odd.  Amendments are, to me, the proof that the original document can be amended.  That the original document may need to be reinterpreted or changed. And amendments can be repealed, of course, as well.  So, how can an "originalist" say that the Constitution must be read exactly as it was written, with no interpretation?

I'm sorry to make this comparison, but it makes me think of fundamentalists who insist that their Book is true in every single word, and yet do not observe the interdictions against tattoos, shellfish, mixing of fabrics, etc.

Originalist see a big difference between using the amendment process to change the constitution and tying words into pretzels to find hidden penumbras within the original document.

That's a bit of a straw man, don't you think?  It's hard to have respect for your side, when you so willfully misrepresent the other side.  It is clearly not some sort of illuminati plot to try to understand how the original document was intended, and to recognize that perhaps there were blind spots in the founders' field of vision that made them word things in a way that are a bit open to interpretation now.

Actually, your comment about an Illuminati plot is a much better example of a strawman or Reductio ad absurdum than my comment about penumbras.  My point is that we have a process to amend the constitution.  It is not an easy feat by any means, but it was intended to be difficult to ensure we don't change it on the fly as the mood strikes us.

Perhaps you could explain where your choice of wording when you chose "hidden penumbras," then.  Because I was not trying to do that, I honestly saw that phrase as you implying that the other side was looking for hidden meanings in some sort of DaVinci Code kind of way.  Could you please explain what you were implying, then?

Penumbra is a word used often in legal proceedings.  pe·num·bra
pəˈnəmbrə/
noun
3
:  a body of rights held to be guaranteed by implication in a civil constitution

My usage wasn't meant to be scary or conspiracy oriented.

Aha.  Well, there you go.  I have never heard that before.  Thanks for clarifying.

[davisgang90]

Which, I have to say, has always struck me as odd.  Amendments are, to me, the proof that the original document can be amended.  That the original document may need to be reinterpreted or changed. And amendments can be repealed, of course, as well.  So, how can an "originalist" say that the Constitution must be read exactly as it was written, with no interpretation?

I'm sorry to make this comparison, but it makes me think of fundamentalists who insist that their Book is true in every single word, and yet do not observe the interdictions against tattoos, shellfish, mixing of fabrics, etc.

Originalist see a big difference between using the amendment process to change the constitution and tying words into pretzels to find hidden penumbras within the original document.

That's a bit of a straw man, don't you think?  It's hard to have respect for your side, when you so willfully misrepresent the other side.  It is clearly not some sort of illuminati plot to try to understand how the original document was intended, and to recognize that perhaps there were blind spots in the founders' field of vision that made them word things in a way that are a bit open to interpretation now.

Actually, your comment about an Illuminati plot is a much better example of a strawman or Reductio ad absurdum than my comment about penumbras.  My point is that we have a process to amend the constitution.  It is not an easy feat by any means, but it was intended to be difficult to ensure we don't change it on the fly as the mood strikes us.

Perhaps you could explain where your choice of wording when you chose "hidden penumbras," then.  Because I was not trying to do that, I honestly saw that phrase as you implying that the other side was looking for hidden meanings in some sort of DaVinci Code kind of way.  Could you please explain what you were implying, then?

Penumbra is a word used often in legal proceedings.  pe·num·bra
pəˈnəmbrə/
noun
3
:  a body of rights held to be guaranteed by implication in a civil constitution

My usage wasn't meant to be scary or conspiracy oriented.

Aha.  Well, there you go.  I have never heard that before.  Thanks for clarifying.

Kris,  No problem.  You tend to be one of the more reasonable folks on the boards.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

One state shouldn't be able to stand in the way of progress, but if more than a quarter of states do...perhaps that's an issue we shouldn't be handling at a federal level at this time.

Except, as I stated above, it only takes 9% of the country to block an amendment today, not 25%.  Voting by state, rather than by population, gives outsized power to rural red states with antiquated ideas.

The ten smallest states by population are:
Wyoming
Vermont
North Dakota
Alaska
South Dakota
Delaware
Montana (largest Congressional district by population - most under-represented in the House)
Rhode Island (smallest state with 2 federal representatives - most over-represented in the House)
New Hampshire
Maine

That isn't exactly a list of red states. Even Montana and Alaska, which vote pretty reliably Republican in federal elections, have many Democrats in their state governments. I have never understood the Democratic meme that the Connecticut Compromise holds them back from domination. It just doesn't make sense.

[sol]

That isn't exactly a list of red states. Even Montana and Alaska, which vote pretty reliably Republican in federal elections, have many Democrats in their state governments. I have never understood the Democratic meme that the Connecticut Compromise holds them back from domination. It just doesn't make sense.

How many Democrats they have in state governance isn't important, if the number is less than 50%.  Might as well be zero for the purpose of ratifying amendments.

And I didn't say the smallest states were all red, I said they only need (50.1% of) 13 of the smallest red states to block all constitutional amendments. 

Plus they'll always get Texas too, not that they need it.

[Jeremy E.]

Here's my take on this. The Constitution was an agreement between the states to give up some of their power. Indeed, the very reason we call them "states" in the first place is that they were essentially sovereign nations before the Constitution was ratified. The intent was to have them keep much of their sovereignty afterwards as well. They put in place a limited federal government, with a certain enumerated set of powers: create a common currency, raise a common army, ensure commerce could happen across state lines, run a post office, and a few other things.

Keep in mind that there is a reason the preamble starts with "We the People" and not "We the States". The latter phrasing was considered and ultimately rejected in favor of the former because it was believed that the states would no longer be sovereign and that the power that the federal government would possess would come from the very people themselves and not from the states. The previous Articles of Confederation had preserved state sovereignty and that was determined to be a total failure.

The states were meant to have equal rights as the federal government and to create most of their own rules. The main reason the articles of confederation was a failure is because they couldn't tax people or get any revenue.

No the states were not meant to have equal rights as the federal government. Nowhere is that in the constitution. Instead it lays out what powers the Federal Government has. Ideally the 10th amendment does reserve every other non-enumerated power for the states, but any observance of that amendment was effectively neutered a long, long, long time ago.

How do you know that the states were not meant to have equal rights as the federal government? The states have checks and balances on the government(outlined in the constitution) just as the branches of government have checks and balances on each other. You've stated no reasons to dismiss the fact that states were meant to have equal rights as the federal government.

[Jeremy E.]

One state shouldn't be able to stand in the way of progress, but if more than a quarter of states do...perhaps that's an issue we shouldn't be handling at a federal level at this time.

Except, as I stated above, it only takes 9% of the countrypopulation of the country or 25% of the states to block an amendment today, not 25%.  Voting by state, rather than by population, gives outsized power to rural red states with antiquated ideaslower population states whereas voting by population gives outsized power to higher population states.

FTFY
There were huge debates over population vs states, they compromised and made 2 houses of congress, they some things requrie states votes, others population (like voting for the electors that vote for president). Most people back then thought it was a weird idea to go by population as they were currently all individual states(not federated constituent states, but sovereign states). The treaties that the states had between each other were not proportionately decided based on population, and the constitution was sometimes thought of as a sort of large treaty.

Also, if they voted by population, northern states that had more industry and less farming could make laws or pass amendments that benefited them and hurt the farmers. Maybe they would tax more things to affect farmers more than them, or abolish slavery.

[LeRainDrop]

“I attack ideas. I don’t attack people. And some very good people have some very bad ideas. And if you can’t separate the two, you gotta get another day job.”  -Antonin Scalia

I really enjoyed reading this collection of the other justices' statements after Scalia's passing, especially the part by RBG who had a great friendship with him despite their obvious philosophical disagreements.  http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/14/read_justice_ruth_bader_ginsburg_s_touching_statement_on_scalia.html

[arebelspy]

Joshua Kennon had a very balanced post on Scalia:
www.joshuakennon.com/thoughts-death-supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia/

[LeRainDrop]

Perhaps you could explain where your choice of wording when you chose "hidden penumbras," then.  Because I was not trying to do that, I honestly saw that phrase as you implying that the other side was looking for hidden meanings in some sort of DaVinci Code kind of way.  Could you please explain what you were implying, then?

Penumbra is a word used often in legal proceedings.  pe·num·bra
pəˈnəmbrə/
noun
3
:  a body of rights held to be guaranteed by implication in a civil constitution

My usage wasn't meant to be scary or conspiracy oriented.

Aha.  Well, there you go.  I have never heard that before.  Thanks for clarifying.

Kris,  No problem.  You tend to be one of the more reasonable folks on the boards.

Yeah, usage of the term "penumbra" in constitutional law is actually pretty interesting.  It traces all the way back to the late 19th century, though it became much more widely known in 1965, when the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Griswold v. Connecticut.  Griswold was a challenge to the state's law that criminalized the encouragement or use of birth control.  Ruling that the state law violated the right to marital privacy, Justice William O. Douglas wrote that "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."  Griswold, thus, identified a right to privacy in the "penumbra" of the Constitution.

If you're interested in learning more about the term "penumbra" in the legal context, I would suggest you browse here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law)

[Kris]

Perhaps you could explain where your choice of wording when you chose "hidden penumbras," then.  Because I was not trying to do that, I honestly saw that phrase as you implying that the other side was looking for hidden meanings in some sort of DaVinci Code kind of way.  Could you please explain what you were implying, then?

Penumbra is a word used often in legal proceedings.  pe·num·bra
pəˈnəmbrə/
noun
3
:  a body of rights held to be guaranteed by implication in a civil constitution

My usage wasn't meant to be scary or conspiracy oriented.

Aha.  Well, there you go.  I have never heard that before.  Thanks for clarifying.

Kris,  No problem.  You tend to be one of the more reasonable folks on the boards.

Yeah, usage of the term "penumbra" in constitutional law is actually pretty interesting.  It traces all the way back to the late 19th century, though it became much more widely known in 1965, when the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Griswold v. Connecticut.  Griswold was a challenge to the state's law that criminalized the encouragement or use of birth control.  Ruling that the state law violated the right to marital privacy, Justice William O. Douglas wrote that "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."  Griswold, thus, identified a right to privacy in the "penumbra" of the Constitution.

If you're interested in learning more about the term "penumbra" in the legal context, I would suggest you browse here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law)

Thank you. I definitely appreciate the context and yes, I will read this.

[Jeremy E.]

Perhaps you could explain where your choice of wording when you chose "hidden penumbras," then.  Because I was not trying to do that, I honestly saw that phrase as you implying that the other side was looking for hidden meanings in some sort of DaVinci Code kind of way.  Could you please explain what you were implying, then?

Penumbra is a word used often in legal proceedings.  pe·num·bra
pəˈnəmbrə/
noun
3
:  a body of rights held to be guaranteed by implication in a civil constitution

My usage wasn't meant to be scary or conspiracy oriented.

Aha.  Well, there you go.  I have never heard that before.  Thanks for clarifying.

Kris,  No problem.  You tend to be one of the more reasonable folks on the boards.

Yeah, usage of the term "penumbra" in constitutional law is actually pretty interesting.  It traces all the way back to the late 19th century, though it became much more widely known in 1965, when the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Griswold v. Connecticut.  Griswold was a challenge to the state's law that criminalized the encouragement or use of birth control.  Ruling that the state law violated the right to marital privacy, Justice William O. Douglas wrote that "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."  Griswold, thus, identified a right to privacy in the "penumbra" of the Constitution.

If you're interested in learning more about the term "penumbra" in the legal context, I would suggest you browse here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law)

Thank you. I definitely appreciate the context and yes, I will read this.

You didn't know what penumbra is? It's common knowledge

[Shor]

You didn't know what penumbra is? It's common knowledge

I don't know why, it's a perfectly cromulent word.

[LeRainDrop]

You didn't know what penumbra is? It's common knowledge

Dude, lay off a bit!  You're the one who didn't know that a constitutional amendment takes 2/3 vote approval by each house of Congress, plus ratification by 3/4 of the states.  I'm quite certain that's taught in the US by middle school.

[Jeremy E.]

You didn't know what penumbra is? It's common knowledge

Dude, lay off a bit!  You're the one who didn't know that a constitutional amendment takes 2/3 vote approval by each house of Congress, plus ratification by 3/4 of the states.  I'm quite certain that's taught in the US by middle school.

Lol, I'm just joking, was gonna see if Kris would realize I was joking or start going off about logical fallacies or some such thing, I didn't know what penumbra meant either.

[Kris]

You didn't know what penumbra is? It's common knowledge

Dude, lay off a bit!  You're the one who didn't know that a constitutional amendment takes 2/3 vote approval by each house of Congress, plus ratification by 3/4 of the states.  I'm quite certain that's taught in the US by middle school.

Lol, I'm just joking, was gonna see if Kris would realize I was joking or start going off about logical fallacies or some such thing, I didn't know what penumbra meant either.

No, I had no idea that you were joking. Maybe you could use the </s> marker to help me out next time.

[LeRainDrop]

Joshua Kennon had a very balanced post on Scalia:
www.joshuakennon.com/thoughts-death-supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia/

That was a very good read.  Thanks for sharing it, arebelspy.

[andy85]

Joshua Kennon had a very balanced post on Scalia:
www.joshuakennon.com/thoughts-death-supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia/

That was a very good read.  Thanks for sharing it, arebelspy.

x2...great read.

[dramaman]

Here's my take on this. The Constitution was an agreement between the states to give up some of their power. Indeed, the very reason we call them "states" in the first place is that they were essentially sovereign nations before the Constitution was ratified. The intent was to have them keep much of their sovereignty afterwards as well. They put in place a limited federal government, with a certain enumerated set of powers: create a common currency, raise a common army, ensure commerce could happen across state lines, run a post office, and a few other things.

Keep in mind that there is a reason the preamble starts with "We the People" and not "We the States". The latter phrasing was considered and ultimately rejected in favor of the former because it was believed that the states would no longer be sovereign and that the power that the federal government would possess would come from the very people themselves and not from the states. The previous Articles of Confederation had preserved state sovereignty and that was determined to be a total failure.

The states were meant to have equal rights as the federal government and to create most of their own rules. The main reason the articles of confederation was a failure is because they couldn't tax people or get any revenue.

No the states were not meant to have equal rights as the federal government. Nowhere is that in the constitution. Instead it lays out what powers the Federal Government has. Ideally the 10th amendment does reserve every other non-enumerated power for the states, but any observance of that amendment was effectively neutered a long, long, long time ago.

How do you know that the states were not meant to have equal rights as the federal government? The states have checks and balances on the government(outlined in the constitution) just as the branches of government have checks and balances on each other. You've stated no reasons to dismiss the fact that states were meant to have equal rights as the federal government.

As I mentioned, the fact that the Constitution starts with "We the People" and not "We the States" was on purpose. That undercuts the prominence of the states in that the Federal Government gained its power directly from the people and NOT the states. In addition the Supremacy Clause gives a good indication that the states are subordinate to the federal government.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

I'll throw the challenge back at you. Where in the Constitution does it enunciate or even imply that the states have equal rights with the federal government? I'll give you a bit of a head start. The only 'check' that I see that the states have from the original Constitution was the selection of Senators, the Electoral College and the fact that the details of voting in general was left to the states. The first two are mostly a nod to the smaller, less populous states done as a compromise to get their buy-in at the convention.


That hardly implies equal rights. On top of that, I would argue that that 'checks and balances' does not equate to rights.

The closest thing that equates to rights is power. For instance states have the power to regulate commerce within their state, while the government has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Anytime commerce regulated by the state overlaps with commerce regulated by the federal government, the federal government wins. The fact that the state has some reserved power to regulate its own intrastate commerce does not mean that it has equal rights.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

That isn't exactly a list of red states. Even Montana and Alaska, which vote pretty reliably Republican in federal elections, have many Democrats in their state governments. I have never understood the Democratic meme that the Connecticut Compromise holds them back from domination. It just doesn't make sense.

How many Democrats they have in state governance isn't important, if the number is less than 50%.  Might as well be zero for the purpose of ratifying amendments.

And I didn't say the smallest states were all red, I said they only need (50.1% of) 13 of the smallest red states to block all constitutional amendments. 

Plus they'll always get Texas too, not that they need it.

This works in reverse too. The system may be weird, but it doesn't seem to favor one party over another in our current configuration.

[dramaman]

Personally I'm glad that the Constitution is very difficult to amend. Except for prohibition, it has thwarted nutcase moralists who want to use amendments to force people to conform to their definition of morality.

[PathtoFIRE]

I just scanned this thread quickly, so forgive if this has already been brought up.

I'm annoyed by the numerous times I'm seeing the President labeled as "lame duck" with regards to the Supreme Court nomination. My understanding is that a lame duck is someone who occupies an office for which the voters have already elected someone else, so that would mean the President's "lame duck" period wouldn't start until after the election (and since he's not/cannot running for reelection anyway, i.e. hasn't been actively rejected by the electorate, a very literal take might say that it still wouldn't qualify as "lame duck").

Clearly this is not a lame duck President trying to squeeze a few more decisions/nominations through. So if, as many Republicans have claimed, the "lame duck" session starts during the last year of the President's four year term, does that mean that all of the Senators up for reelection in November and the entire House of Reps are recusing themselves from further business too, as it is the last year of their current terms, and maybe the people will elect someone else to fill their positions? I doubt it.

[dramaman]

I just scanned this thread quickly, so forgive if this has already been brought up.

I'm annoyed by the numerous times I'm seeing the President labeled as "lame duck" with regards to the Supreme Court nomination. My understanding is that a lame duck is someone who occupies an office for which the voters have already elected someone else, so that would mean the President's "lame duck" period wouldn't start until after the election (and since he's not/cannot running for reelection anyway, i.e. hasn't been actively rejected by the electorate, a very literal take might say that it still wouldn't qualify as "lame duck").

Clearly this is not a lame duck President trying to squeeze a few more decisions/nominations through. So if, as many Republicans have claimed, the "lame duck" session starts during the last year of the President's four year term, does that mean that all of the Senators up for reelection in November and the entire House of Reps are recusing themselves from further business too, as it is the last year of their current terms, and maybe the people will elect someone else to fill their positions? I doubt it.

While Lame Duck traditionally meant that period of time after an election replacing a politician it has evolved over time such that for Presidents in particular are increasingly referred to as a Lame Duck the closer the President comes to their end of office, particularly in the latter half of their second term. That being said, the idea that a President should abstain from Constitutional responsibilities during that time frame is patently ridiculous. For instance, if the U.S. was attacked, nobody would argue that the President should let the U.S. people decide in the coming election and wait for the next elected President to respond.

[infogoon]

Clearly this is not a lame duck President trying to squeeze a few more decisions/nominations through. So if, as many Republicans have claimed, the "lame duck" session starts during the last year of the President's four year term, does that mean that all of the Senators up for reelection in November and the entire House of Reps are recusing themselves from further business too, as it is the last year of their current terms, and maybe the people will elect someone else to fill their positions? I doubt it.

Seems like Congress recused themselves from doing anything useful in about 2011.

[MDM]

Where in the Constitution does it enunciate or even imply that the states have equal rights with the federal government?

The Tenth Amendment can be read to imply something along those lines.

[dramaman]

Where in the Constitution does it enunciate or even imply that the states have equal rights with the federal government?

The Tenth Amendment can be read to imply something along those lines.

Yes, I mentioned that earlier myself. The 10th Amendment does not enunciate or imply equal rights. What it does say is that powers not explicitly given to the Federal Government are reserved for the states. Not EQUAL but DIFFERENT. Its also mostly irrelevant at this point as it has been pretty much swept under the rug in the last 200 years.

[nereo]

I just scanned this thread quickly, so forgive if this has already been brought up.

I'm annoyed by the numerous times I'm seeing the President labeled as "lame duck" with regards to the Supreme Court nomination. My understanding is that a lame duck is someone who occupies an office for which the voters have already elected someone else, so that would mean the President's "lame duck" period wouldn't start until after the election (and since he's not/cannot running for reelection anyway, i.e. hasn't been actively rejected by the electorate, a very literal take might say that it still wouldn't qualify as "lame duck").

Clearly this is not a lame duck President trying to squeeze a few more decisions/nominations through. So if, as many Republicans have claimed, the "lame duck" session starts during the last year of the President's four year term, does that mean that all of the Senators up for reelection in November and the entire House of Reps are recusing themselves from further business too, as it is the last year of their current terms, and maybe the people will elect someone else to fill their positions? I doubt it.

While Lame Duck traditionally meant that period of time after an election replacing a politician it has evolved over time such that for Presidents in particular are increasingly referred to as a Lame Duck the closer the President comes to their end of office, particularly in the latter half of their second term. That being said, the idea that a President should abstain from Constitutional responsibilities during that time frame is patently ridiculous. For instance, if the U.S. was attacked, nobody would argue that the President should let the U.S. people decide in the coming election and wait for the next elected President to respond.

I'm increasingly annoyed at how the term "lame duck" has shifted earlier and earlier.  It wasn't even a full year after Obama had been re-elected when I first heard some talking-heads refer to him as a "lame-duck" president.  After the 2014 midterm elections the usage was widespread.  I agree that a President should continue to do his or her constitutional duties up until (s)he is replaced.  The only time I think the term "lame-duck" might be appropriate is for an outgoing President between the Nov. elections and the January inaugeration of the new President.  Even then a President should continue to pass or veto legislation and not (as many seem to suggest) defer all action until the new guy/gal moves into the oval office.

[infogoon]

I'm increasingly annoyed at how the term "lame duck" has shifted earlier and earlier.  It wasn't even a full year after Obama had been re-elected when I first heard some talking-heads refer to him as a "lame-duck" president.  After the 2014 midterm elections the usage was widespread.  I agree that a President should continue to do his or her constitutional duties up until (s)he is replaced.  The only time I think the term "lame-duck" might be appropriate is for an outgoing President between the Nov. elections and the January inaugeration of the new President.  Even then a President should continue to pass or veto legislation and not (as many seem to suggest) defer all action until the new guy/gal moves into the oval office.

As other people have pointed out, apparently the GOP thinks a black President only gets three-fifths of a term.

[nereo]

I'm increasingly annoyed at how the term "lame duck" has shifted earlier and earlier.  It wasn't even a full year after Obama had been re-elected when I first heard some talking-heads refer to him as a "lame-duck" president.  After the 2014 midterm elections the usage was widespread.  I agree that a President should continue to do his or her constitutional duties up until (s)he is replaced.  The only time I think the term "lame-duck" might be appropriate is for an outgoing President between the Nov. elections and the January inaugeration of the new President.  Even then a President should continue to pass or veto legislation and not (as many seem to suggest) defer all action until the new guy/gal moves into the oval office.

As other people have pointed out, apparently the GOP thinks a black President only gets three-fifths of a term.

I'm not going to make that leap and say it's because he is a black President.  Rather, I think there's a tendency on both sides to label someone from the other party as a "lame duck" earlier and earlier.  To be fair I remember people talking about "W" the same way. I'm of the opinion that a President (regardless of party) should do their job as long as they remain in office.  That includes nominating a new Supreme Court justice.

[Jeremy E.]

I'm increasingly annoyed at how the term "lame duck" has shifted earlier and earlier.  It wasn't even a full year after Obama had been re-elected when I first heard some talking-heads refer to him as a "lame-duck" president.  After the 2014 midterm elections the usage was widespread.  I agree that a President should continue to do his or her constitutional duties up until (s)he is replaced.  The only time I think the term "lame-duck" might be appropriate is for an outgoing President between the Nov. elections and the January inaugeration of the new President.  Even then a President should continue to pass or veto legislation and not (as many seem to suggest) defer all action until the new guy/gal moves into the oval office.

As other people have pointed out, apparently the GOP thinks a black President only gets three-fifths of a term.

Republicans generally made up the north, while democrats generally made up the south. Abraham Lincoln was a republican that brought forth the Emancipation Proclamation which lead to the amendment that freed slaves forever(in the United States). Yes Donald Trump is a racist, but look at the rest of our candidates, Rubio, Carson, previous candidate Bushes Wife, etc. There may be a few racist republicans, but I don't think it's fair to call the entire GOP racist.

[nereo]

I'm increasingly annoyed at how the term "lame duck" has shifted earlier and earlier.  It wasn't even a full year after Obama had been re-elected when I first heard some talking-heads refer to him as a "lame-duck" president.  After the 2014 midterm elections the usage was widespread.  I agree that a President should continue to do his or her constitutional duties up until (s)he is replaced.  The only time I think the term "lame-duck" might be appropriate is for an outgoing President between the Nov. elections and the January inaugeration of the new President.  Even then a President should continue to pass or veto legislation and not (as many seem to suggest) defer all action until the new guy/gal moves into the oval office.

As other people have pointed out, apparently the GOP thinks a black President only gets three-fifths of a term.

Republicans generally made up the north, while democrats generally made up the south. Abraham Lincoln was a republican that brought forth the Emancipation Proclamation which lead to the amendment that freed slaves forever(in the United States). Yes Donald Trump is a racist, but look at the rest of our candidates, Rubio, Carson, previous candidate Bushes Wife, etc. There may be a few racist republicans, but I don't think it's fair to call the entire GOP racist.

This hasn't really held true over the last few decades.  Which is another way of saying parties shift over time, both in their positions and their demographics. I believe there are racists in both parties.

[Jeremy E.]

I'm increasingly annoyed at how the term "lame duck" has shifted earlier and earlier.  It wasn't even a full year after Obama had been re-elected when I first heard some talking-heads refer to him as a "lame-duck" president.  After the 2014 midterm elections the usage was widespread.  I agree that a President should continue to do his or her constitutional duties up until (s)he is replaced.  The only time I think the term "lame-duck" might be appropriate is for an outgoing President between the Nov. elections and the January inaugeration of the new President.  Even then a President should continue to pass or veto legislation and not (as many seem to suggest) defer all action until the new guy/gal moves into the oval office.

As other people have pointed out, apparently the GOP thinks a black President only gets three-fifths of a term.

Republicans generally made up the north, while democrats generally made up the south. Abraham Lincoln was a republican that brought forth the Emancipation Proclamation which lead to the amendment that freed slaves forever(in the United States). Yes Donald Trump is a racist, but look at the rest of our candidates, Rubio, Carson, previous candidate Bushes Wife, etc. There may be a few racist republicans, but I don't think it's fair to call the entire GOP racist.

This hasn't really held true over the last few decades.  Which is another way of saying parties shift over time, both in their positions and their demographics. I believe there are racists in both parties.

I was using passed tense to refer to the time around the Civil War I suppose

[dramaman]

I'm increasingly annoyed at how the term "lame duck" has shifted earlier and earlier.  It wasn't even a full year after Obama had been re-elected when I first heard some talking-heads refer to him as a "lame-duck" president.  After the 2014 midterm elections the usage was widespread.  I agree that a President should continue to do his or her constitutional duties up until (s)he is replaced.  The only time I think the term "lame-duck" might be appropriate is for an outgoing President between the Nov. elections and the January inaugeration of the new President.  Even then a President should continue to pass or veto legislation and not (as many seem to suggest) defer all action until the new guy/gal moves into the oval office.

As other people have pointed out, apparently the GOP thinks a black President only gets three-fifths of a term.

Republicans generally made up the north, while democrats generally made up the south. Abraham Lincoln was a republican that brought forth the Emancipation Proclamation which lead to the amendment that freed slaves forever(in the United States). Yes Donald Trump is a racist, but look at the rest of our candidates, Rubio, Carson, previous candidate Bushes Wife, etc. There may be a few racist republicans, but I don't think it's fair to call the entire GOP racist.

No the entire GOP is not racist. Still it does look bad the way that GOP leaders continually try to delegitimize Obama, who happens to be the first black President. One could argue that they treated Bill Clinton pretty bad as well without racism being a factor. Still fair or not, it just looks bad to treat Obama so poorly. And it cuts both ways, every time Obama dares to say anything about race, he gets accused of being a divider instead of a uniter. As much as we might to wish otherwise, we are not a color blind society and that unfortunately leaves lots of room for innuendo regarding racial motives.