This Corona Virus Mania is Just Too Much, We All Need to Chill!

[rbbert]

We will soon know whether Oxford university's optimism is justified but I can't imagine that such a respected institution and world class team made their statements without very solid foundations

I certainly hope you (and they) are right

 

[fbhifi]

Ron, the US Constitution is certainly an “interpreted document” as it‘s intent has been consistently debated, in and out of court, for hundreds of years. The result of this process being, among others, the creation of constitutional amendments.

As US culture continues to evolve and change, the Constitution continues to be re-interpreted so as to remain contemporaneously relevant and effective as a governing document.

 

[Gregadd]

Glad to know strict constructionist federalist believe the constitution is a livivg document and subject to interpretation and change.

 

[Al Stewart]

Ron, first thank you for your reply. Second, I don't consider the first sentence all that controversial. You have mentioned that there are different views or methodologies on "how" to interpret the Constitution. But, all sides agree the Constitution must be interpreted--and that is what the U.S Supreme Court ultimately does. How the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the Constitution invariably changes with fundamental changes in the U.S. Supreme Court's members and how they form voting blocks on the Court itself. The interpretation of the Constitution changes as the Court's members change. I apologize for not being clearer. I wasn't trying to be controversial. The modern American presidency, through both Democratic and Republican administrations has pushed for more power than arguably the Constitution provides the Executive branch. Whether the Executive branch is afforded that power has everything to do with the membership of the U.S. Supreme Court at a given time in history.

 

[ack]

Please forgive me for being presumptuous.

But then you must know that even your first sentence is entirely controversial: "So, the U.S Constitution is an interpreted document that changes with time."

That first sentence blithely assumes the answer. In fact, whether or not the understanding and the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution "changes with time" (or is fixed in time under the method of constitutional interpretation known as "original intent") is itself the most fundamental threshold question underlying most matters of constitutional interpretation.

Not sure where Al Stewart is controversial: a) every law, and in fact every legal document, is all about how it's being interpreted by the courts; constitutional lawyers interpret the constitution; b) yes, the Constitution changes with time, in the form of amendments, and how it's being interpreted by any Supreme Court panel at the time.

It will be interesting to watch how the question of totalitarianism that came up today during the press conference will evolve. When the Vice President was asked:

Reporter: "Do you agree that his [trump's] power is total?"
Pence: "I support the president's leadership under the national emergency declaration that he signed... Make no mistake about it; in the long history of this country, the authority of the president of the United States during national emergencies is unquestionably plenary"

We'll be looking forward to how the courts interpret all that, and what the outcome is, and where all of us stand on this

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, first thank you for your reply. Second, I don't consider the first sentence all that controversial. You have mentioned that there are different views or methodologies on "how" to interpret the Constitution. But, all sides agree the Constitution must be interpreted--and that is what the U.S Supreme Court ultimately does. How the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the Constitution invariably changes with fundamental changes in the U.S. Supreme Court's members and how they form voting blocks on the Court itself. The interpretation of the Constitution changes as the Court's members change. I apologize for not being clearer. I wasn't trying to be controversial. The modern American presidency, through both Democratic and Republican administrations has pushed for more power than arguably the Constitution provides the Executive branch. Whether the Executive branch is afforded that power has everything to do with the membership of the U.S. Supreme Court at a given time in history.

With much of this I agree. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Rob181]

I understand that being a capitalist country, corporations and small businesses had significant influence on the rate of adoption of lockdowns. Sadly, that short-sightedness is what will actually hurt them, and the rest of us the most.

Bingo !!

 

[DaveC]

I thought Trump delegated everything to the states and the Federal Government is there just for "backup"? Now he claims absolute power? For Trump to make these claims after what he's said recently is bizarre.

 

[ack]

We're f**ked.

I hope we do all understand that, under a national emergency declaration, we may even see attempts - if not worst - to "postpone" the presidential election in November, if you get the drift.

 

[Rob181]

"Incredible pressure" is no excuse for failings that could have been easily avoided had early warnings been taken seriously.

The comment of the day !!

 

[tima]

Sometimes we need qualified opinions and not emotional reactions by people who have no idea WTF they are saying ...

Such as this one?

...the response from our government as well as others has been nothing but massively negligent and incompetent.

 

[Al M.]

I hope we do all understand that, under a national emergency declaration, we may even see attempts - if not worst - to "postpone" the presidential election in November, if you get the drift.

I know, very worrisome. Other leaders, like Hungary's Orban, already have used the crisis for a power grab.

 

[Al M.]

Such as this one?

What's wrong with the truth?

 

[Al M.]

The comment of the day !!

 

[Ron Resnick]

These hysterical "Trump Becomes Dictator" fantasies reveal a shocking ignorance of American political science and constitutional law.

I'm outey.

 

[Gregadd]

The supreme court has ruled that the notion that something is legal if the president does it it is not illegal as not valid in US v Nixon.
POTUS is not a constitutional challenger but a criminal law and constitutional violater. The fact that those whose job it is to check his abuse have declined to do so notwithstanding.
I will be nack in 3 days.

 

[DaveC]

Such as this one?

You're right. This came out of nowhere and there was no way to be prepared for something like this. The US response has been absolutely perfect, couldn't be better.

 

[Al M.]

These hysterical "Trump Becomes Dictator" fantasies reveal a shocking ignorance of American political science and constitutional law.

I'm outey.

No they don't. I have followed the breakdown of political norms and crumbling of institutions in this country closely. Nothing about this is in any way reassuring.

Historical parallels are too obvious, especially to someone like me who has the European experience. The idea that this could not happen in America is naive. Our political system is relatively strong, but not that strong. Unfortunately.

 

[Al M.]

You're right. This came out of nowhere and there was no way to be prepared for something like this. The US response has been absolutely perfect, couldn't be better.

Perfect like the perfect phone call.

 

[DaveC]

These hysterical "Trump Becomes Dictator" fantasies reveal a shocking ignorance of American political science and constitutional law.

I'm outey.

He was acquitted in a trail where the jurors admitted they had no intent to be impartial. Evidence and witnesses were not allowed.

And you're shocked? I'm a little bit shocked that you're shocked!