Originally posted by Bardock42
No. There's one body that the US lets decide about it. But the constitution can be interpreted by anyone. Obviously my opinion doesn't decide whether it is deemed unconstitutional, but it is still relevant all the same.
What SHOULD be in it can be debated by anyone.
But what, factually, actually is or is not constitutuonal... that is absolutely decided by just one body. It's not up for debate. What should or should not be can be debated. What is or is not... cannot, it is set for you.
If the FCC was unconstitutional it would not exist. You can want it to be so, you can feel it should be so, but the stark fact is that it is not.
In any case, your view that it should be is based onn a very basic reading of the Constitution which is worth very little.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well that it is your opinion is fine., But to therefore say it is 'definitely' unconstitutional is a long way off.The Constitution is decided by the Supreme Court, and its job is to interpret not only what is written in the Constiution, but also what was meant by those who wrote it. And so therefore taking these things literally is a bad idea. Freedom- whether of the press or of speech- has never been literal, constituitionally speaking.
You can say it should, but that's a whole different ball game.
Obviously that was implied. I am sure everyone is aware of the fact that it is not de facto unconstitutional, seeing as it exists in the US.
My wording might have been radical, but obviously every of my posts that's on an opinion issue has an unwritten "imo" behind.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well that it is your opinion is fine., But to therefore say it is 'definitely' unconstitutional is a long way off.The Constitution is decided by the Supreme Court, and its job is to interpret not only what is written in the Constiution, but also what was meant by those who wrote it. And so therefore taking these things literally is a bad idea. Freedom- whether of the press or of speech- has never been literal, constituitionally speaking.
You can say it should, but that's a whole different ball game.
😬 Seems like a clear abuse of the government system. Yes they do have the power to do that but to redefine it in such an abstract way should not be within that power (in my opinion) because it makes the Constitution irrelevant to law makers.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
What SHOULD be in it can be debated by anyone.But what, factually, actually is or is not constitutuonal... that is absolutely decided by just one body. It's not up for debate. What should or should not be can be debated. What is or is not... cannot, it is set for you.
If the FCC was unconstitutional it would not exist. You can want it to be so, you can feel it should be so, but the stark fact is that it is not.
In any case, your view that it should be is based onn a very basic reading of the Constitution which is worth very little.
I figured the person meant what we think about whether it is unconstitutional.
I still figure that. You think he meant whether it is actually unconstitutional, in the US, today?
Originally posted by UshgarakIn your opinion.
Why does it make it irrelevant to law makers?You are making an error here in thinking the Constitution is not being used in the way it was meant to.
Far from it- working like this is exactly what was intended.
In my and a few others used as it is now was not intended.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Just reflecting the Court's opinion I am afraid. I didn't write the damn thing.
Yes, we can agree that the courts find the FCC to be constitutional. Should we end the thread here or can we talk about why we think it should or should not? I promise I will use less absolute words.
Originally posted by UshgarakFair dos. I take it back.
I feel your comment that it definitely IS unconstitutional warranted a comment about such views.I am a little worried by those who feel that the Constitution was ever intended to be read literally.
Frankly I think such consttutions are horrible things.
I meant to say "I think it should definately be unconstitutional".
Originally posted by Bardock42
In your opinion.
Nope. Once more, just reflecting the opinion that matters. The Court was set up for just that purpose and its remit to bear in mind the reasoning behind parts of the Constitution- not just its literal meaning- was there from the start.
This is all just fact.
As for a basic comment about the question asked- no, it's not unconstitutional, and the reason it has not been heldf to be so is because it is a mistake to misread the freedoms of speech and the press to think you are allowed to say whatever you like. That;s not what they mean, it's never what they meant, and if people have since used the prhease "freedom of Speech" to mean something different, that is of no relevance to the constitution.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nope. Once more, just reflecting the opinion that matters. The Court was set up for just that purpose and its remit to bear in mind the reasoning behind parts of the Constitution- not just its literal meaning- was there from the start.This is all just fact.
No. I am pretty sure the constitution was crafted to assign the roles to different parts of the government (for one) but also to give people certain rights that should only be trampled on in the way the constitution assigns for it (2/3 of Congress changing it, I believe). I am close to certain it was meant to give people rights that could not just be interpreted away. Obviously they can be, as I suppose is the case with all laws.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
Well one of the problems is that even the Constitution is not clear and is open ended on the subject and is subject to interpretation by the courts. Such as the wording between indecent and obscene, where one is protected and the other is not.
I'd agree that is a problem.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No. I am pretty sure the constitution was crafted to assign the roles to different parts of the government (for one) but also to give people certain rights that should only be trampled on in the way the constitution assigns for it (2/3 of Congress changing it, I believe). I am close to certain it was meant to give people rights that could not just be interpreted away. Obviously they can be, as I suppose is the case with all laws.
Well, if you genuinely were in ignorance of the Supreme Court's role in that, and the importance of interpretation of the Constitution to the whole process, I am happy to have put you right on that.
I am surprised you think it is a bad thing though.. A dogmatic reading of it would be horrendous. The importance of the Constitution was what the Founders (and later writers) intended; a literal reading was not that- which can be very clearly seen by some of their commentary on the matter.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Why does it make it irrelevant to law makers?
Because in the FCC can be created with a mission statement like that it means anyone can have anything censored (I could take down CNN for getting a fact wrong if enough people got behind me according to the FCC mission statement). If the same thing can be extended to other parts of the Constitution (and it can) any freedom can be summarily suspended which is an abuse of the government system and makes the Constitution far more malleable than I think it was ever intended to be.
Of course it was meant to change with the times but when the Courts allow freedom of speech to be suspended in the case of "extreme, incorrect, or somehow improper political, economic, or social statements" that aspect of the Constitution simply ceases to exist.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
You are making an error here in thinking the Constitution is not being used in the way it was meant to.
I think the interpretation currently being used is manipulative and dangerous.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Far from it- working like this is exactly what was intended.
I understand that. That doesn't mean I can't impotently ***** about the direction it is being taken in.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, if you genuinely were in ignorance of the Supreme Court's role in that, and the importance of interpretation of the Constitution to the whole process, I am happy to have put you right on that.I am surprised you think it is a bad thing though.. A dogmatic reading of it would be horrendous. The importance of the Constitution was what the Founders (and later writers) intended; a literal reading was not that- which can be very clearly seen by some of their commentary on the matter.
Doesn't say that in the constitution of course. Still, they might believe that that's what the writer's of the constitution intended, but though their believe is final on what happens in the US, it doesn't mean that it has to be accurate.
Explain how literal reading would be worse than what we have today, please.
I'm really fuzzy on why you think the Constitution becomes irrelevant to lawmakers just because there are exceptions to it. The fact that it can be interpreted doesn't mean it will be nullified on all mattters- that's the old 'slippery slope' approach used to argue against legalising gay marriage and so on.
There also comes a point where by championing freedom of speech you have started to champion the less moral side.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I'm really fuzzy on why you think the Constitution becomes irrelevant to lawmakers just because there are exceptions to it. The fact that it can be interpreted doesn't mean it will be nullified on all mattters- that's the old 'slippery slope' approach used to argue against legalising gay marriage and so on.
When the exceptions are virtually all encompassing why have the law at all?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
There also comes a point where by championing freedom of speech you have started to champion the less moral side.
I don't follow.