I’m in law school right now taking Constitutional Law and it’s kinda bumming me out how obviously bullshit 95% of it feels. It’s almost like we’ve just had a long history of partisan jackasses stretching and counter stretching shit to get what they want, and as a result the legislature has almost been totally removed from the process of making constitutional amendments. Like it feels like the majority of constitutional law has zero basis in the constitution. Am I wrong and misunderstanding?
>>18407125You didn't realize that before you got to law school? What an NPC.
>>18407141I didn’t know the extent of it, like the fact that literally every single person agrees Slaughterhouse was wrong, but nobody wants to overturn it for fear of rocking the boat, so there’s an entire section of the Constitution with the Privileges and Immunities clause that functionally just gets completely ignored. Although partially I guess a lot of this is the fault of drafters being really vague when writing Amendments.
>>18407148The Slaughterhouse cases were correct by the standard of how the Constitution was interpreted at that time and the incorporation doctrine wasn't really a thing for almost a century yet.
>>18407156The Slaughterhouse cases addressed the 14th amendment which was passed immediately after the Civil War to protect the newly freed slaves. The idea they don’t address state infringement of rights is insane
>>18407125*emanates from a penumbra at (You)*
>>18407125Did you learn about the birth certificate scam yet and how the government creates a trust through the social security administration in the infants name in all capitals and that’s the entity that gets charged not the natural person.
>>18407125Pre-2000s Jurisprudence was really primitive. It's even more noticeable once you start learning state law. I think the rise of online databases had a massive and multiplicative effect on the combined legal knowledge of the profession.
>>18407372is this some skitzo sovereign citizen nonsense?
>>18407376
>>18407125Man imagine making a career where your entire purpose is to interpret some partisan bullshit written by jews and their golems. Go become an engineer and create something.
>>18407125>I’m in law schoolYou should kys right now parasite
>>18407190As he said, the incorporation doctrine wasn't a thing per se until the Warren Court.
>>18407374I agree in the sense that a lot of creative reinterpretations of the Constitution by progressive judges fall apart when you actually know a little about the Federalist papers and what they were supposed to do, but years ago it was probably hard to find that stuff out.
Did you know the freedom of contracts clause had nothing to do with how it was interpreted in Lochner v. New York? In fact it was a one time measure for a specific problem when the Constitution was drafted.>the states are forbidden by the contracts clause from abolishing debts their citizens owe to banks>this was considered necessary to keep the infant nation's financial system solvent
>>18408164of course, the judges probably just had no idea what it was supposed to do, that information wasn't readily accessible pre-Internet
>>18407190Of course you're whining about the pre-incorporation days and not Wong Kim Ark. Kys faggot.
>>184081431. Incorporation doctrine concerns the Bill of Rights 2. The 14th amendment is the basis of incorporation doctrineWhat are you talking about?
Now try moving to a non-masonic city. Hahahahahahhaa
As late as the 1930s it was generally held that the Bill of Rights did not or only applied in part to the states.
>>18408194>and not Wong Kim ArkThe citizenship clause was also a one-time thing to give freed slaves citizenship after the Civil War, it was never meant to be used in the way it was interpreted in this case.
>>18408199Yeah no shit, imagine crying about muh state governments when the courts declared anchor babies legal.
>>18407385>wonders why he loses in court against said jews and golems
>>18408159Hammer v. Dagenhart was decided correctly btw, that particular issue was a state and not a national level one to regulate.
>>18408159I thought the purpose of the Constitution was to let whores kill their babies and let faggots play house with each other and let smut peddlers run loose
>>18407125Hi OP, I graduated law school last year and am currently working at a big law firm. The first year is the hardest part, and sorry to hear that you're depressed. If you want to talk about it feel free to message me on discord anytime, my username there is favelour.>It’s almost like we’ve just had a long history of partisan jackasses stretching and counter stretching shit to get what they want, and as a result the legislature has almost been totally removed from the process of making constitutional amendments.I remember before law school being really pissed about this one case Arver v. US, which I actually found out about on /his/, where during WW1 a guy was arguing the draft was unconstitutional because (among other things) it violated the 13th amendment's ban on involuntary servitude. The court said this was not so because conscription to defend the republic was understood as a duty of citizenship since at least ancient greece, congress has the power to declare war to defend the republic, and the 13th amendment was meant to end chattel slavery and similar practices, not curtail the waging of war. Even though that's all true, I really struggled with this because our constitution says that in our country there shall be no involuntary servitude, except for prisoners. Period. Conscription is involuntary servitude, unquestionably, and yet the court just said "yeah, nah, nice try" just ignoring the text of the constitution.Then when I took con law I discovered that case is not unique at all and the court does that all the time. That's just what constitutional law is. A series of made up doctrines by ordinary lawyers in robes who ideally are wise and not political actors, but they're only human.
>>18408164>>18408164"freedom to contract" in lochner did not come from the contracts clause, it came from the 14th amendment's substantive due process. It was the same justification used for Roe v Wade. The 14th amendment says states cannot deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and the court said that "liberty" included the "freedom to contract" so therefore any state law was unconstitutional if it limited people's ability to negotiate their own contracts by doing such horrifying things as setting minimum wage and overtime for low level workers that had basically 0 bargaining power. Note that this was also at the same time when the court had previously struck down a federal minimum wage as unconstitutional for violating the tenth amendment because only states could legislate on that issue. But when a state tried it, the court came up with a different excuse to rule in favor of the factory owners that were brutally exploiting their workers.After learning more about this case I started to understand why people felt Roe was wrongly decided. I think abortion should be legal, but it should have come from congress. Having a judge decide that there is some hidden super secret right to "privacy" inside the word "liberty" in the 14th amendment and therefore "whoops guess all state laws banning abortion are unconstitutional lol, just go ahead and change the constitution if you care so much about abortion heh heh" is not how things should be done in a republic.>>18408199then congress should have drafted it better. I've read Wong Kim Ark in its entirety and I think the arguments of the majority are FAR more convincing than anything that's being argued in the current case to overturn it. If that does not result in a 9-0 ruling against the administration I will be surprised.
>>18408216That’s the kind of interpretation I wish SCOTUS would do more. Actually seeking to respect authorial intent instead of twisting it into a right of whores to kill their own children in the womb, or of faggots to disgrace the institution of holy marriage, or of pornographers to degrade society with smut, and all the other blood the court has on its hands.(not OP)
>>18408218that was typical of progressive era judges. another example was when Illinois tried to regulate railroad rebates (an extremely abusive and exploitative practice at the time) and the courts said they can't do that because railroads are engaged in interstate commerce so only Congress can regulate them.
>>18408218>then congress should have drafted it better. I've read Wong Kim Ark in its entirety and I think the arguments of the majority are FAR more convincing than anything that's being argued in the current case to overturn it. If that does not result in a 9-0 ruling against the administration I will be surprised.Surprise surprise. Faggot.
>>18408226The Interstate Commerce Commission was created shortly afterward, in the end it was a net gain to the railroads as they could have a forum for working out disputes in an orderly manner instead of knifing each other in the back, and it was more fair and reasonable than many of the pitchfork mob state level regulatory attempts which came off as more vengeance than anything.
>>18408234the oral arguments aren't until next week, then it will be months until there is a decision
A lot of the civil rights rulings that the Warren Court made were really, really reaching as far as a constitutional justification for them.
>>18408237while that's true, this is more an argument that this would be better regulated by the federal government, so once there is federal regulation it preempts any state attempts to regulate the railroads. But if congress refuses to act on an issue of national importance then states SHOULD be stepping in to do something if their citizens feel strongly about it. Not have the supreme court say how DARE you do this, will someone PLEASE think of the poor innocent railroad tycoons???
>>18408243yeah I felt that way with the cases upholding the civil rights act by saying congress had the power to say hotels and restaurants could not refuse service to black customers because of the commerce clause. Only justice Marshall was willing to say it was ridiculous, but he wanted to break with past jurisprudence and say there was a substantive due process justification for civil rights iirc, and it was absurd to say congress could legislate some basic human dignity only because it had some vague economic impact.
>>18408214even Ruth Bader Ginsberg admitted Roe v. Wade was decided badly
If you mean Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, that was absolute bullshit.
>>18408226>that was typical of progressive era judges. another example was when Illinois tried to regulate railroad rebates (an extremely abusive and exploitative practice at the time)afaik that was done by Governor John Altgeld a progressive-minded German. he was later run out of office on a rail for pardoning the Haymarket rioters and succeeded to office by a standpatter Republican.
What was the one from the 1920s when the Supreme Court ruled that Indians are not white?
>>18408218>but it should have come from congressWould require a constitutional amendment for that.
>>18408279nah you can justify it with the commerce clause
>>18408279correct, 10th Amendment and whatnot
>>18408159the commerce clause for instance was supposed to apply to state actors not private parties also it was supposed to ensure a free trade zone between the states. it was an invention of the progressive era that it could be used as a blank check to regulate anything ever.
>>18408311>the commerce clause for instance was supposed to apply to state actors not private partiesdisagree with that, the commerce clause was intended to allow congress to regulate the actions of individuals when they are engaged in interstate commerce. For instance look at the cabotage laws that were instituted by the first congress that were intended to strengthen US shipping. They restricted the ability of individuals to engage in commerce in whatever way they thought could provide the best prices to consumers and highest profits to them.
>>18408311As cf. Hammer v. Dagenhart. They said "we ban child labor used to make goods sold in interstate commerce" and the USSC shot that down because they said working conditions in a factory are not covered under that.
>>18408311>the commerce clause for instance was supposed to apply to state actors not private partiesNote that corporations were historically not considered to be individuals, not until the Citizens United case anyway.
I believe in the early days of the country the Federalists/Whigs said the Bank of the United States was allowed under the commerce clause and the Democrats disagreed. Thomas Hart Benton famously said show me the line in the Constitution where Congress is authorized to create a national bank.
>>18407125It was fucked up from almost the beginning. Marbury v Madison was just a made up judicial power grab. It went downhill from there.
>>18409028wasn't it the currency clause?
>>18409028There doesn't need to be a line specifically giving congress the power to create a national bank. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 states>[The Congress shall have Power...] to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.The Necessary and Proper Clause was included in the Constitution in response to the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation, which had limited federal power to only those powers "expressly delegated to the United States." While the Framers chose to follow the Articles in enumerating a list of specific federal powers as opposed to some general statement of federal power, they included the Necessary and Proper Clause to make clear that Congress’s power encompassed the implied power to use all appropriate means required to execute those express powers.You can go down the list of congress' article 1 powers, and Hamilton's bank facilitated the government in doing so many of them>collecting taxes>paying debts>borrowing money on the credit of the US>regulating international and interstate commerce>coining money and fixing standards of weights and measure>establishing post offices and roads (through helping to finance federal projects)>raising and supporting armies (ditto)>>18409029The idea of judicial review as it occurred in Marbury is talked about in the federalist papers, and it raises the very valid point that the constitution clearly did not intend the constitution to just be an aspirational document, but the supreme law of the land, superior to an ordinary act of congress. If a simple act of congress could go against the constitution then why is it so much harder to amend the constitution than to pass an ordinary law? And if the constitution is superior to acts of congress, who can enforce that? The courts.
>>18407385You retards say shit like this and then act like it's some grand complex conspiracy that you don't dominate institutions.
>>18409028also there were arguments over Federal infrastructure spending. Federalists said the Constitution allowed it. some states rights extremists said only the states could build roads and whatnot. Andrew Jackson took the middle-of-the-road position that it could be allowed as part of national defense since roads were needed to move the military around. James Monroe did not believe the Constitution allowed Federal infrastructure projects, but said he would be ok with adding a constitutional amendment for it. However, Congress disagreed and argued they didn't need an amendment and it was already allowed; Monroe responded by writing an essay on why he felt it wasn't.
>>18409052>However, Congress disagreed and argued they didn't need an amendment and it was already allowed; Monroe responded by writing an essay on why he felt it wasn'tyou think by adding an amendment it would have settled the issue rather than leave it dangling in the air like that
>>18409053They didn't want to do that because Southern states who were opposed to Federal infrastructure programs on principle would vote against it. Personally I agree with Jackson's position that it was allowed under Congress's power to provide for national defense since roads serve a strategic use.
I have a question. In the nineties they made it legal for corporations to donate to political movements, as people. From thereafter the government served who paid them the most, where they used to get paid through taxes. Does this not invalidate the entire Constitution? We The Corporations(people)
>>18408311Gibbons v. Ogden was the first Supreme Court case dealing with the commerce clause. In that case Chief Justice Marshall ruled that a canal dispute between Pennsylvania and New York was to be settled by Congress under its power to regulate interstate commerce. Still, Marshall wrote that it was not a blank check that allowed Congress to regulate the states' internal matters, which was a power that progressives started tacking on during the 20th century.
>>18409057actually that was in 2010, not the 90s
>>18409062I see. So isn't this technically illegal? We are now taxed without representation
>>18409064no, because people have freedom of assembly, companies donating money to movements is unethical but it hardly violates the principle of taxation without representation
>>18409067So if my elected representative serves the interest of fill in the blank corp and not me than how am I represented?
>>18409069because you were the one who elected them, retard.
>>18408143thing is, it was never entirely clear just how much of the Bill of Rights was appended onto the states by the 14th
>>18408164The Court refuted the Lochner doctrine in Williamson v. Lee.
>>18409071My question was how am (I) represented? How would that even be possible. No need to call names
>>18409078Representatives, as the name implies, typically represent congressional districts, aka the place you live. People electing corporate stooges is the result of retarded voters, which you can only help by having a voter base that isn't retarded. The best safeguard to Democracy is Education as FDR said
>>18408226The courts also decided that the Sherman Antitrust Act applied to labor unions so they could rule closed shops to be an illegal monopoly.
>>18409082>>18409082So if special interests fund both sides of every single election than wouldn't they win every single election no matter who I vote for? That doesn't sound very educated
>>18409085third parties are allowed to exist anon, the reason they never win is the aforementioned retarded voter base
>>18409084In addition to issuing injunctions against striking workers until Congress banned them from doing that in 1932.
>>18409088and how much money does it cost to run for Congress? I am not stating any personal beliefs or asking you to agree with whatever you might assume they are, I'm a little bit mystified as to why you would pretend to not understand the question. You literally have to take interest money to get elected, obviously
>>18409090none of that is inherently true, it's only true in practice because, once again, the average voter is a retard, and nobody wants to take accountability for their own retardation
>>18409093So in practice it is illegal but in theory it would be possible for an individual voter to be represented by their government, in Minecraft.
>>18409096you can say whatever you want if all you do is argue in strawmen, sure
>>18409099So I'll ask for a third timeIn practice, how would one be represented by their government if it is required for them to be funded by special interest? Whom would I vote for if they can only serve them? It is a very straightforward question. If you don't know than that's ok because I don't know either, but why say that it's the fault of people for not voting for an imaginary politician? That is a strange argument. Even if people weren't stupid I don't see how that would make a difference. You are being disingenuous
>>18409105>if it is required for them to be funded by special interest?that's a strawman argument>Whom would I vote for if they can only serve them?"if they can only" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here in your strawman argument>If you don't know than that's ok because I don't know either,I made my answer pretty clear already, you need an educated voting population>but why say that it's the fault of people for not voting for an imaginary politician? there are no imaginary politicians, third parties exist, you can vote for them, but like I already said, the idea that it's even a guarantee that every politician you like or not is some corporate stooge is a complete strawman anyways, please return your diploma from reddit university
>>18409114>that's a strawman argumentName one single politician that only gets paid by taxes>"if they can only" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here in your strawman argumentwould they not serve their financial benefactors out of the kindness of their heart? Name one example of this being the case>I made my answer pretty clear already, you need an educated voting populationWhom would such an educated population vote for in the stead of the current two party system? The Green Party? (that is a strawman) >but like I already said, the idea that it's even a guarantee that every politician you like or not is some corporate stoogename a single one that isn'tSince we've started our little debate you have very much behaved like a 12 year old girl and shifted the focus of a very large problem from one you seem to understand that is beyond your control to one that might hypothetically be, if only they were intelligent enough to listen to you. Ego people take whatever they are and create a hierarchy and put that thing at the top of it. Might I ask what you are?
>>18409114just stop responding to him, there's no point
>>18408220They show they understand more deeply what law is. Law is commands and wills. Ink on paper has no will and cannot command. The judge imposes his will upon it, by extension upon other wills. People who bow to letters will exist only to be tools by those who understand that all is will.
