DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Do you understand what elemental means?
Stupid or subversive?
- Thread starter DamnYankee
- Start date
Then are you saying that the original intent was that the Constitution's meaning could be changed by law/judicial decisions without being formally amended- which could mean wholesale revisions of the document, i.e., revolution? If the Constitution is a living document, it could adapt without “changing” and could bend without breaking. Regardless of the what the libertarians believe about the Founding Fathers’ original intent the document has always been treated as a living document throughout history and the process began early on in that history- with (as near as I can tell) no complaints from the Founding Fathers that were still around. I don’t know of a single instance where any man whose signature is on the document ever went public to say that some law or judicial decision is “not what I intended the Constitution to allow”.
Do you understand what it means to present yourself as a fool by claiming to have special insight into history when you are wrong on basic facts of history?
Since you don’t seem to have gained much understanding of the South’s history after you have lived in a region that you are not a native of, I fail to see how your living in a non-native region has given you a better understanding of either Northern history or American history in general. You are wrong on certain basic facts about southern history, so why should anyone think you have gained a better understanding of the history of any other place simply by living in the South?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
flaja and christie, for you to side with the idea that it is up to the gov and courts to interpret the constitution and laws as it applies to the times would have zero reason to bitch about the PATRIOT ACT, or any other legislation that comes down from congress. They would simply be legislating and deciding according to their times.
Is that what you think the constitution was meant to be?
Is that what you think the constitution was meant to be?
christiefan915
Catalyst
I think my post was a little loosey-goosey because I've agreed with everything you wrote so far, (although I'm searching for info about women voting at the time the Constitution was written). Re: your first sentence, no, I support the amendment process even though it can move at glacial speed.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Well, I'm totally against the patriot act so I do understand where you're coming from. And, probably the only amendment you and I would differ on is the Second, but are you against selective incorporation and case law? How would you think the issues that triggered those laws should have been handled?
christiefan915
Catalyst
And therefore...?
... they didn't have the counsel of wise women with rich experiences who more often than not would reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived their lives.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
it's unfortunate you disagree on the right to bear arms, however, the supreme court showed it's abuse of power by declaring that the bill of rights only constrains the federal government, despite clear language of the 14th Amendment. The Incorporation doctrine should have been immediately denounced by congress and at that point I would have recommended removing every supreme court justice for violations of oath of office. executed if necessary.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Does this mean you completely disagree with case law?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
for quite a few cases, yes.
Your surprise may come from a misunderstanding of what conservatism is- it is not libertarianism. The Constitution as a living document allows it to adapt and this (contrary to what you may believe possible) gives it some degree of stability. The U.S. Constitution of 1787 is the oldest written constitution in the world. Its adaptability means that it hasn't been necessary to formally amend it to any great extent. A legitimate conservative craves stability, but the libertarians you encounter on the net crave chaos- the more chaotic society is the less able society is to control what libertarians do.
However, as a conservative I do not support change for the sake of change. The living document that can be changed without amendment set up a cumbersome change process- the republic of the United States of America. The long, drawn out process of change gives us time to reflect on what change means so we aren’t prone to make rash decisions. Change through politics is faster than change through amendment, but it is still a slow laborious process.
I don't have documentation right off. It is information I was given in a college course on American colonial history. I vaguely remember New Jersey being one of the states where women could vote, while free blacks may have been able to vote in Virginia.
Don't get me wrong. Just because I see the Constitution as a living document does not mean that I would give up the formal amendment process; the shape the country is in right now I wish that process were used more often. But the amendment process could be turned over to the American People (constitutional convention) who could (I fear as a conservative) be stampeded into proposing and ratifying unwise amendments.
There are certain elements of the Patriot Act that I am opposed to as well. Just because I am willing to let politics and the courts adapt the Constitution does not mean that I think each and every adaptation is OK.
There is no magical power that will protect our constitutional rights so we must be vigilant. No mere piece of paper can compel politicians and judges to respect our rights. We must have faith in ourselves today, not what men put on paper over two centuries ago. And I am not saying that every citizen should be armed to the teeth in the name of protecting themselves from big bad government. The right to bear arms is a regulated right and no government can recognize a right to armed rebellion and maintain its sovereignty. We have no cause to resort to the cartridge box as long as we are vigilant at the ballot box. As Burke said the only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good men do nothing.
Ignore him. If it was originally meant for the states to be bound by the Bill of Rights because of the 14th Amendment it wouldn’t have taken 7 decades after the Bill of Rights to add the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Prior to the 14th Amendment there was no 14th Amendment to justify making the states obey the Bill of Rights. The Congress that proposed and the legislatures that ratified the 14th Amendment may not have either meant for or realized that the 14th Amendment could make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, but then this is why the Constitution is a living document. The people that wrote it and its amendments could not possibly have anticipated every circumstance and condition that the Constitution would some day be subjected to. We must either treat the Constitution as a living document that must be interpreted by each generation- or scrap the whole thing altogether- and I seriously doubt that libertarians would like what modern America would put in its place.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
This alone, makes you a retarded buffoon.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
this continuously proves you're an idiot who has no clue to what history actually portended.
Good Luck
New member
Those who insist the Constitution is a "living document" to be interpreted according to changes in society seem to forget (or ignore) the fact that the primary purpose of the constitution was to define our federal government. The limitations set forth were and are designed to assure federal authority does not get out of control. And even then, when it was all said and done, a significant faction was not satisfied with the limitations set forth, so they added the Bill of Rights to make certain that certain rights of the people would remain sacrosanct.
The problem with change through reinterpretation is all it takes is a couple new judges to switch which primary political philosophy is in majority, and then the changes are reversed. Of prime example is the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule was set forth because the Constitution did not provide for any consequence when law enforcement violates constitutional protections. With that lack, SCOTUS recognized there must be some consequence, so they ruled that any evidence gained through any process that violated constitutional protections could not be used to prosecute the suspect. It was a good ruling, IMO.
However, since the Constitution was not changed to reflect this recognized need for additional protection, recent events have eroded the intent - and thereby the protection - of the exclusionary rule. Had this ruling been advanced into a full blown amendment, there could not be a later court come by and say "well, if there was no deliberate INTENT to fuck the person's rights, then it is OK." (Which has been ruled in more than one case) Now we have rulings which set precedent that evidence CAN be used; all law enforcement has to do is say "oops" and perhaps "discipline" the "negligent" officers. Those are BAD rulings, IMO, which could not have occurred if we did not treat SCOTUS rulings as additions to the Constitution.
Society does, indeed, change. However, the authority we grant government does not need to change every time society does. In fact MORE stability is provided a society based on the principles of individual liberty if governmental authority is held in check DESPITE any changes in society. If anything, any changes in government should reflect the recognition of GREATER liberty, not more government authority. Amendments that increased access to the vote, amendments and laws that recognize differences between peoples should not limit application of human rights: these are changes that reflect changes in society. Laws and rulings that increase government authority over us are the antithesis of what constitutional limits are for.
Side note specifically to this statement:
The very purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to assure the power of armed revolt if it ever becomes necessary. (Let us pray it does not ever become so!!)
Read the statements by those who wrote the BOR referencing the 2nd Amendment. See if you can meet my challenge of finding quotes from the same period (ie: when the BOR was written) to indicate the 2nd Amendment was NOT intended for the People to retain right to the final authority of armed revolt, as well as for self defense. (They don't even mention hunting....) I issued the challenge in another thread:
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/li...-p418201.html?&highlight=challenge#post418201
As to your claim that original intent cannot be divined for any section of the Constitution, you are also dead wrong. We have the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention. We have the Federalist and anti-federalist papers. We have letters and journals of those involved. Your argument that these documents do not count because many of them were not available to the general public until later is a bunch of hooey. If people voted for (or against) ratification without the knowledge makes no difference. Many voters today go out and vote with little (if any) comprehension of the people or laws they are voting for. That does not stop others from studying the issues and politicians and making informed votes.
The words/thoughts of the founders were recorded, and give us the ability to read their words and thoughts NOW, and from those studies come to a better and more comprehensive understanding of what they intended when they wrote the Constitution and BOR. It is incumbent on us to do so. It is a slap in their face to take the attitude that what their intent was is irrelevant simply due to the passage of time.
The problem with change through reinterpretation is all it takes is a couple new judges to switch which primary political philosophy is in majority, and then the changes are reversed. Of prime example is the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule was set forth because the Constitution did not provide for any consequence when law enforcement violates constitutional protections. With that lack, SCOTUS recognized there must be some consequence, so they ruled that any evidence gained through any process that violated constitutional protections could not be used to prosecute the suspect. It was a good ruling, IMO.
However, since the Constitution was not changed to reflect this recognized need for additional protection, recent events have eroded the intent - and thereby the protection - of the exclusionary rule. Had this ruling been advanced into a full blown amendment, there could not be a later court come by and say "well, if there was no deliberate INTENT to fuck the person's rights, then it is OK." (Which has been ruled in more than one case) Now we have rulings which set precedent that evidence CAN be used; all law enforcement has to do is say "oops" and perhaps "discipline" the "negligent" officers. Those are BAD rulings, IMO, which could not have occurred if we did not treat SCOTUS rulings as additions to the Constitution.
Society does, indeed, change. However, the authority we grant government does not need to change every time society does. In fact MORE stability is provided a society based on the principles of individual liberty if governmental authority is held in check DESPITE any changes in society. If anything, any changes in government should reflect the recognition of GREATER liberty, not more government authority. Amendments that increased access to the vote, amendments and laws that recognize differences between peoples should not limit application of human rights: these are changes that reflect changes in society. Laws and rulings that increase government authority over us are the antithesis of what constitutional limits are for.
Side note specifically to this statement:
Absolutely incorrect in the extreme. For one, you use the wrong definition of "regulated". In 1780 the word also meant to be provisioned.
The very purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to assure the power of armed revolt if it ever becomes necessary. (Let us pray it does not ever become so!!)
Read the statements by those who wrote the BOR referencing the 2nd Amendment. See if you can meet my challenge of finding quotes from the same period (ie: when the BOR was written) to indicate the 2nd Amendment was NOT intended for the People to retain right to the final authority of armed revolt, as well as for self defense. (They don't even mention hunting....) I issued the challenge in another thread:
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/li...-p418201.html?&highlight=challenge#post418201
As to your claim that original intent cannot be divined for any section of the Constitution, you are also dead wrong. We have the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention. We have the Federalist and anti-federalist papers. We have letters and journals of those involved. Your argument that these documents do not count because many of them were not available to the general public until later is a bunch of hooey. If people voted for (or against) ratification without the knowledge makes no difference. Many voters today go out and vote with little (if any) comprehension of the people or laws they are voting for. That does not stop others from studying the issues and politicians and making informed votes.
The words/thoughts of the founders were recorded, and give us the ability to read their words and thoughts NOW, and from those studies come to a better and more comprehensive understanding of what they intended when they wrote the Constitution and BOR. It is incumbent on us to do so. It is a slap in their face to take the attitude that what their intent was is irrelevant simply due to the passage of time.
Good Luck
New member
Seriously, you need more study.
Those who wrote, promoted and ratified the 14th Amendment did so knowing full well it applied the full BOR to state governments. They wanted it that way in order to enforce the newly derived concept that the rights of citizens be granted across the board. Without the 14th Amendment, any federal prohibition against slavery or granting of rights to blacks would have been meaningless, as the states could have ignored it. (they basically did, anyway, with bogus SCOTUS decisions such as "equal but separate" to support them - an additional case against the idea of "interpreting" and "living document")
How do you know what out of control is if you don’t interpret the meaning of the Constitution? Social Security is out of control as far as a Wall Street plutocrat is concerned, but that plutocrat’s low-paid factory worker may easily find government-mandated Social Security perfectly OK.
I love it when you libs make my job this easy. If regulated meant “provisioned” then when the Constitution gives the Congress the power to regulate commerce it must have meant that Congress has the power to provision commerce, i.e., subsidize it.
BTW: The word’s meaning in 1780 (which you gave without documentation) is of no consequence in this discussion since the Constitution was not written until 1787 and the 2nd Amendment was not ratified until 1791.
When and where did any of the men who wrote, proposed or ratified the 14th Amendment say that they either intended or did not intend for that amendment to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states? If they did ever make a statement that the 14th Amendment made the states subject to the Bill of Rights, why did it take a century of litigation for the Courts to fully apply the Bill of Rights to the states? And if these men did ever say that the 14th Amendment was not intended to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, how and why was litigation ever allowed?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You don't think these guys talked with their wives about it?... they didn't have the counsel of wise women with rich experiences who more often than not would reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived their lives.