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.