I am far from clever .

My point was and is simply dismissing an entity as corrupt because they have power doesn't make sense. Are there organizations that are powerful that are corrupt? I'm sure. Are there powerful people that are corrupt? I am sure. Is it possible that the SCOTUS is corrupt? Sure. Do you have proof? No, I 'm not asking you for proof; I'm just saying that this can be said of ANY organization-Nabisco, General Mills, the local homeowners association, etc but it is all meaningless if you don't have proof of what you are saying. It's just made up.

Further, when used as a debate tool (making the unfounded assumption that someone in power is corrupt and therefore should not be listened to), it's an easy win using a strawman argument.

That was and is my point.

First off, my basic problem with your style of debating is that you cherry pick sources on the topics you debate on. Your idea of "proving" something is to link to some individual article as if that, in itself proves your point.  A thing may be true 95% of the time but you think if you can find an example of the 5% it undoes the remaining 5%. You then conclude your argument with some sort of smear of those you disagree by calling them or their views "extreme" or "bizarre" as if your pronouncement, on its own, has some scholarly weight to it. You're not a scholar. Your pronouncements mean nothing other than demonstrating an unearned arrogance to other participants. 

In this case, I named off several biographies that discussed, at length, the constitutional concerns regarding the Louisiana purchase.  The constitution did not give the federal government the power to acquire territory.  I'm glad we did. I would have been on the side of those, like Madison, who wanted to look the other way. But at the time, it was roundly considered unconstitutional.  

Rather than endless appeals to authority, you could, for example, argue what constitutional power gave the federal government of the early 19th century the power to purchase territory. That might be an interesting debate. Instead, your role on these threads seems to be to try to shut down discussion by appealing to what you consider an authority and trying to marginalize those who disagree with you through name-calling.  If you're not interested in discussing the topic, then find another topic.

The idea that scholarly biographies on the subjects are somehow disproven because you gave a goddam Wikipedia link is insulting.  You're welcome to disagree with my conclusions but to make such definitive statements based on such a weak assertion is obnoxious.

I've already done this.

We've encountered this problem with you in the other thread. When you don't want to see something, you simply refuse to read/comprehend it.  In the case of the Global Warming thread, you literally repeated the same question over and over again despite the fact that it had been answered in writing each time.

In this case, I have already explicitly answered that question as has the link that I used had you bothered to read either.  I'll repeat myself:

As the Father of the Constitution pointed out, the Lousiana Purchase was done by a treaty.  The Constitution explicitly grants the President the right to negotiate the treaty.  The treaty then went through the Senate as required by the Constitution.  The funding went through the House as required by the Constitution.  What exactly do you want?

I only have time to respond to so much - I'm not writing my PhD thesis, so I'm not going to grind out each and every subpoint.

Also, since I have good reason to believe that a lot of my stuff isn't being read (see above), I'm not terribly inclined to go through every single subpoint since it will just get TLDR'd.

Finally, YOU are the one who started this thread with the express purpose of lecturing others about the Constitution.  So if you want to claim that I'm being arrogant about it, fine, but you are being TREMENDOUSLY hypocritical if you say that since you started the thread with the express purpose of lecturing to others on it.

Sigh, we are back to this again.

Listen, I don't like to call people out on fallacies on the internet again since it makes people upset.  But I guess I'm going to defend myself here again.

The fact that I happen to cite sources for my arguments is not an appeal to authority.  If you honestly think that citing sources for factual statements is an appeal to authority, you are simply clueless.  Simply asserting facts is not good enough - they need a source.  I tend to be careful in establishing my facts, and therefore will provide evidence that such facts exist.  Hence, I provide links.  This is considered good practice in any reasonable field.  If you disagree, you are simply being silly.

On the other hand, "I read some unnamed biographies on some founding fathers, therefore what I say is authoritative" IS an appeal to authority.  It is not citing sources BECAUSE YOU DON'T ACTUALLY NAME ANY SOURCES.  I didn't call you on it because it isn't polite to play that game on the internet, but you are starting this process, so I'll defend myself this time.

Anyway, I've cited my sources.  My links have repeated links to scholarly sources if you actually bothered to read them (which you probably didn't).  On the other hand, you have cited exactly 0 scholarly biographies on the subject to back up your arguments ("some unnames ones that I read this one time" doesn't count as a citation).

As I've pretty clearly shown, if you'd like to play the citation game, I'm more than happy to go there.  I love citations.  I use them all the time.  Go read how many links/citations I've provided to my sources in this thread.  Compare this to EVERYBODY ELSE COMBINED.

In any case, I have repeatedly been willing to establish my position with careful and repeated citations.  You have not - you have simply asserted your position and vaguely insisted that others back you up.  Then you accuse me of having weak assertions?  Listen, I'm not claiming to have a PhD thesis here, but its a heck of a lot more than you've done.

So anyway, if you want to play the citation game, lets play the citation game.  If you don't want to play it, fine.  Its the internet, and I get that most people don't play that game on the internet.  But if you don't want to play the citation game on the internet, don't complain that I cite my sources and you don't.  That's just odd.

You're clearly not listening. Repeating your previous non answers with a "that's just odd" makes it clear you have no desire to discuss topics with those who don't share your view.  

I'm sorry you think thst linking to a single example somehow demonstrates a very broad assertion. I don't think, at this point anyone is going to be able to help you.  

It's a classic issue where the person thinks there is only one correct opinion and thus if you just explain it enough they will recognize that. Those who resist are either dumb, ignorant, extreme, or just aren't reading what you write.

I think it best if we leave the discussion at that. I won't be responding further to you.

I thought this article was relevant:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Fine_Art_of_Baloney_Detection

For those of you who don't think Wikepedia is a good source of accurate info...Wiki articles often cite sources. Before "writing off" the article, it may be worth reviewing the sources provided.

I think Wikipedia is a good source. My problem is when a source is used to Provide a generalization when it's only citing an example. If I say e Louisiana Purchase wasn't constitutional that's my opinion.  It's an opinion that was widely shared at the time. I am not intending my opinion to be treated as a universal truth because in matters of law it's all interpretation. Roe vs. Wade was unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court, at the time, said it was. 

People can and will have debates in such things. I don't, however, like it when somorone tries to marginalize or trivialize so some else's interpretation with ad hominems (bizarre,  extreme,  weird, strange, etching.).  That has no place here.

if someone wants to say "Well Madison thought it was constitutional" and provides a source I'm fine with that. Good for him. So what? If you think that ends the debate then fine, move on.

Ok, what Constitutional power gave them the right?  I'd argue it this way.

The President can make treaties with foreign powers, the Senate confirms those treaties. 

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.

This is the Supremacy Cause.

This at least gives some cover for this, though folks who cherish the Tenth Amendment heavily will disagree.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of this interpretation in 1920 in Missouri vs Holland.

I'd argue that whether this was Constitutional was something that could have been debated, but there are arguments on both sides, and it widely viewed as constitutional now, outside of perhaps some fringe groups.

I do think an argument based on whether the federal government could pay money would have more merit, but given indemnities often existed in peace treaties at he time , I think that would be a very weak argument.

You don't just get to waive away facts that are inconvenient to your arguments.  That is everything that is wrong with the world today - people are so partisan and biased because they stubbornly refuse to see anything that doesn't fit their preexisting worldview.

As soon as you see something that doesn't fit your view of Global Warming or the government or the Constitution, you immediately reject it and toss it out.  You have repeatedly done it in this thread and the other one.  Then you accuse others of being biased.  So typical.

I'm happy to continue the discussion, but I'm the only one furthering the conversation.  If you want to continue the discussion, you need to provide some valid reason for why my numerous counter examples don't apply or are inadequate.  So far, you basically say "NUH UH".  

I carefully construct and cite a number of counter examples to a broad assertion that was presented.  It then gets dismissed with "isolated example, NUH UH".  Come on now.

Anyway, I've repeatedly  cited sources which show that the Supreme Court, lower federal courts, various founding fathers, and various constitutional scholars disagree with your broad claims.  You have cited exactly 0 sources to back up anything you claim.  If you want to further the conversation, the ball is entirely in your court.  Provide an actual argument beyond a bald assertion that you are right about something.  I've provide reasoning and citations to pretty much everything that I've said.

I'm always willing to entertain that there might be other interesting viewpoints.  HOWEVER, you will need to present some reasonable argument.  You just present bald assertions of broad principles with little support.  You then reject all the counter examples that get presented as not worth paying attention to.

Broad assertions with numerous counter examples don't exactly convince me.

Says the guy responsible for:

A completely specific assertion full of very direct supporting points.  

Bravo to you.

The fact remains that constitutional interpretation is a discipline founded and based upon ideology and opinion.  It's not science.  It never will be, despite how much "experts" like to try to construe it otherwise.   

We can easily have discussion about how we should interpret 230 year old documents and we can discuss how they should be applied today, but trying to pass off calls to authority as if they are the end of the discussion is dumb.  They don't end the discussion.  They merely inform it.  They provide further detail to show why one thinks the way they do.  This isn't science with testable, provable hypothesis.  It's educated opinion hopefully grounded in a consistent world view.  

Stop acting like a link to a Wikipedia article (and even all its attending source links) somehow validates your opinion as the correct one.  

The purpose of discussions like this is to be challenged by those who disagree with you in order to learn as a part of forming and strengthening or changing our opinions as we decide for ourselves.  And, if we're doing it right, to be entertained int he process.  The point isn't to be right or vindicated, certainly not on some internet forum.  I feel like you miss that point in some overwhelming need to have everyone agree with you.  

You have to differentiate between somebody criticizing your views and personal criticism.

Also, you have to realize that I first showed that the vast majority of the modern legal system (in the federal courts, including the Supreme Court) in addition to the rest of the federal government, in addition to many Constitutional scholars, in addition to many founding fathers explicitly disagree with you.  On that basis, I think that it is fair to call your views extreme.  Given that I first carefully showed WHY I consider your views extreme (with citations!), I think that my use of adjectives absolutely has a place.

I also don't get why you think that "extreme" is such a crazy label here.  You disagree with essentially the entire judicial branch (with an admitted view exceptions like Scalia) and the entire legislative branch and the entire executive branch on the Constitution.  I don't think that its unfair to characterize your views on the Constitution as extreme.

With regards to the logic again: I first showed that your views didn't match those of the majority of the experts (scholars, the courts, etc), then used the adjective.  This is not not ad hominem by definition.  An ad hominem would be to first apply the adjective, then draw the conclusion.  To first demonstrate the property, then label it is just a characterisation.  You have the logical order flipped on ad hominems.

For example, this is an ad hominem: "You are extreme, therefore, you are wrong"

This is not (it is just a basic generalization): "This sources show that your views are outside of the mainstream, therefore, you are extreme"

That is a very interesting way of looking at it.  Essentially, France was selling land and the US signed a treaty to obtain it in exchange for X. As long as the treaty was confirmed by the senate that would be fine. 

So the question is, is that how the Louisiana Purchase was done?

Yep, I agree.

Brad is the one who has tried to present it in terms of absolutes.  He listed the absolutes in his OP that could not be violated and tried to list the things that absolutely can and cannot be done.  I'm the one arguing for a more wishy washy view of things.

So yeah, I agree with you. 

The point I am making is that the Supreme Court gets the final say on what is Constitutional and what is not.  And if you repeatedly insist that they are wrong, well, you are being extreme and have a highly idiosyncratic interpretation of the thing.  That's not to say that you are necessarily always wrong (hell, I surely don't always like the Supreme Court's view of things).

What we can list as facts are Supreme Court rulings.  What the Supreme Court has ruled on X is not open for debate, and that the Supreme Court has the authority to rule on such things is also not open for debate (well, not really...let's not go there).

Actually no, there are many things in life that don't have proof yet are completely real.  Proof is just an idea that is used by the courts to determine unimpeachable sources of proof.  Often times common sense is thrown out in favor of obscure rules that some lawyer somewhere argued and won.  

For example, do you love someone?

Prove that you do.

Experience also falls into this category, how can you prove that you have certain neural connections that come from learning about your environment? You can talk to people, much like you would talk with a potential employer for a job yet that wouldn't be proof. You may get different information from the exact same experience than another person because you have a different set of neural connections.  How do you prove this when neuroscience can't make sense of all the connections?  Not to mention that neural mapping is in it's infancy.

Proof and the rules behind it have also been corrupted by the legal system that has lost perspective.  So much relevant information is thrown out in the current system that proving one's guilt or innocence is very difficult.

Don't take my word for it, apply some critical thinking to some research.  

W...T...F

I already said that the Lousisiana Purchase was done by Treaty negotiated by the president and ratified by the Senate.  In fact, I said it twice and linked to it once.  I'll quote myself:

And then you had the gall to say that I was the one who wasn't paying attention to the arguments that others were making?  Its clear that you aren't even bothering to read most of my posts even before you got frustrated and said you weren't responding.  I think that a big part of the frustration was that you weren't reading them closely enough to understand the reasoning.  This whole Louisiana Purchase thing happened because...you didn't bother to read the argument about treaties that I made twice and linked once.

Actually you are the one who is quoting Wikipedia articles as if they settle the argument.  Brad made points and talked about biographies that support his points to show that he wasn't "extreme" as you labeled him.  You seem determined to brow beat everyone into admitting Brad is "extreme" by throwing around vapid statemetns like "Also, you have to realize that I first showed that the vast majority of the modern legal system".  

First thing, the Supreme Court can be and has been wrong plenty of times.  The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter on how lower courts and enforcement agencies have to interpret laws.  They are not, however, the ultimate arbiter on right and wrong.  Unless of course you think Dredd Scott deserved to be a slave?  

The point is in a topic like this, especially a non-scientific one, that we can have reasonable disagreements and citing experts, while informing the discussion, doesn't end it.  Not by a long shot.  

You say you are agreeing with me, but then go on to say exactly the opposite of what I'm saying.  

Just to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with Brad at all.  I'm agreeing with him that citing links and claiming victory makes no sense and is entirely counter-productive to interesting discussion.  

And you still haven't bothered to explain all of the "extreme" positions Brad has taken that I keep asking about and you keep ignoring.  

Correct.  However, they ARE the ultimate arbitrator on what is Constitutional and what is not Constitutional.  This is an argument about what is and is not Constitutional, not what is right and wrong.

There may very well be a huge range of valid opinions on what is right and wrong in many of these cases. However, there can be very little doubt in many cases on what is or is not Constitutional (once the Supremes make a ruling - before that there can be tremendous confusion).  Don't confuse the two.

I'm not saying that it was ethical the Dredd Scott and his family were slaves, I'm saying that it was unquestionably LEGAL at the time.  Its an entirely different argument.  Wikipedia articles obviously don't show what is morally right, but they can show what is legally right and settle that debate beyond any reasonable discussion in many cases.

Whether or not a position is in line with current law can be established as a matter of fact.  Therefore, you can establish whether or not somebody's positions are consistently in line with established federal rulings on laws.  If the views aren't in line with the government on a consistent basis, I would label that somebody's positions as "extreme".  Does that mean they are morally wrong?  No - I would have labeled Jefferson and Madison as "extreme" in their day as well.  But they are still out of line with mainstream views.

Except, they're not the permanent and ultimate arbiters of what is legal or not.  Their successors can, and have often enough, overturn previous courts opinions.  Just because the court has made a decision on a particular issue doesn't mean discussion should end.  You can listen to the law, follow the law and still debate whether or not the law is correct.  You seem to have this incessant need to "win" the discussion.  Most everyone else seems to be here to enjoy the difference of opinion and the thought provoking arguments that everyone posts.  By your actions it seems like you're here to declare victory.

As an aside this:

Ok.

In a democracy, or at least a representative system like a republic, the current sitting government represents the people in some sense.  Therefore, if your views strongly contradict those of the vast majority of the entire government over a long period of time, that is a very strong indication that your views are extreme.

I'm talking about all branches of government, not just the presidency.

Yes.  And this would change what is and is not Constitutional.  Which is fine with me since I am arguing for a flexible interpretation of the Constitution.  It is Brad who is insisting on the strict originalist interpretation that is not subject to change (sans Amendment) as a function of time.

What I am saying is that at any one given time, there is only one correct interpretation if the Supremes or lower court have made a ruling.

You can debate ethical correctness all you want, but thats not what this thread is about.  Once the Supreme Court has made a ruling, discussions of legal correctness are moot - the point has been decided and your opinion no longer matters as a practical point.  Thats how society works - when it comes to the law, some peoples' opinions matter (ie judges), and some peoples' don't (yours and mine).

If federal courts haven't ruled on something, yeah, it can be a point of discussion.

My opinion on what is and isn't constitutional is certainly not the definitive or last say on the matter.  It is the opinion of one guy.  

However, the constitution's words are clear and ultimately, every subsequent law passed by the federal government has to abide by it.  However clear those words are, time has shown that different people have different interpretations of those words.  That said, in general discussions on the Internet, it is pretty clear that most people are largely unfamiliar with it, even merging state government with federal government.

The purpose of a discussion is...well, to discuss.  When people jump in and try to insist that there is nothing to discuss -- that there is a single, "correct" opinion tend to annoy the others who are trying to discuss the topic.  Eventually, people just start to tune out their posts (which I am most certainly guilty of doing, eventually I just stop reading when I see that person's name).

There's a whole lot of qualification in there walking back your last statement.  Regardless, by this definition, Brad isn't extreme.  And really by virtually any definition going the views in the OP are not extreme.  They're supported by one of the two major thoughts of constitutional scholarship.  You simply want to shout extreme rather than have a real discussion.  It's intellectual cowardice.  Back up your views by defending them and engaging in discussion, not by trying to brow beat everyone who disagrees with you.

I say again, the point of this is to challenge each other and learn from one another.  Not to declare victory.  

The first sentence and the second aren't mutually exclusive.  You can argue that the Court is wrong or not and still be a strict constructionist.  Strict constructionist thought still depends upon case law, since the justices would need to decide when and if the Constitution applies. 

For example, a strict constructionist judge would interpret the second amendment just as Brad wrote it above.  A living document type would try to use the changing definition of "regulate", for example, to argue that the federal government has the right to put limits of firearm ownership.  Both points are valid points of argument regardless of the case law and current interpretation.  You're trying to act like you can't have the debate, because the court has already ended discussion. 

And yet again you fail to offer any evidence about all of his extreme views (you used the plural, not me) except for an arcane point about Brad's opinion of the Louisiana Purchase somehow making his views extreme.  

The treaty argument presumes that anything the US does by treaty is thus constitutional.  They're currently using this to subvert the Second Amendment through the UN.

It's pretty fast and loose to say the US has no authority to do something, but if it's a treaty with another country it's okay.  If you instead posit that the US has no authority to make a treaty outside it's strictures, then the treaty itself was not made under the authority of the Constitution and is itself unconstitutional.

The purchase was a good idea, but constitutionality is most definitely in question when you spend other peoples money to buy foreign territory.  Expansion wasn't listed as one of the powers.  Cause for taxation was explicitly specified, the only way you wiggle around that gaping hole is by determining, in a round about way, that by making the purchase, you were providing for the common defense or general welfare of the United States.

That opens up a major can of whoop ass on what the US can and can't do in self defense.  We might end up in a war later, because they might want to expand into our territory, so we can take measures to prevent that future possibility?  Bush Doctrine anyone?

Thought exercise about the treaty question:

If the US and Russia signed a treaty regarding gay marriage agreeing to ban the practice everywhere within their own jurisdictions and not to honor other countries' gay marriages, is that acceptable?  Is it constitutional?  Legal?  Assume the treaty was signed by the president and ratified by the Senate. 

It's fine if you tune out my posts.  I tune out other people's posts too.  Its the internet and thats your right.

But don't directly ask a question and then intentionally tune out my response after I take the time to respond.  Then accuse me of not answer your questions.  That makes me upset and its crap behavior.  You did that above with the treaty/Louisiana Purchase.

Also, if you want to tune me out, don't run around and whine about ME not addressing each and every one of your points because I don't have time.  Talk about hypocrisy.