The US Constitution

Is the US Consititution that important to you?

  • strictly a legal document and should be followed to the letter and intent

    Votes: 14 70.0%

  • a living document that ebbs and flows interpreted by 9 people on the supreme court

    Votes: 4 20.0%

  • it's old and antiquated and should be totally ignored by the courts for the good of society?

    Votes: 2 10.0%
  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
Watermark said:
Conservatism should be banned. I don't know about the rest. Fuck the constitution.
Click to expand...

Basically, you don't believe in the rule of law and want to impose your vision of society on everyone else, no matter the cost.

The only thing that I will disagree with about a literal interpretation of the Constitution (which I definitely support) is that you cannot ascertain the original intent of the people who wrote it, primarily because not all of them agreed about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They were all compromising and working for consensus. The best way is to simply go for a literal interpretation and make a logical argument based on actual words, with as little inference as possible.
 
Racism itself (the belief in superiority of one's race or ethnicity) is not a crime. It is atavistic, vacuous, and IMO morally bankrupt, but it is not a crime. A crime occurs when someone's rights are violated. Someone joining the KKK is not a crime; the KKK lynching someone or burning down their house are most certainly terrible crimes.

I reject all thought crimes, the label of which I believe we can comfortably apply to hate crimes. Moreover, imprisoning someone because they were motivated by racism to commit a crime does absolutely nothing to diminish racism in our society, its purported goal.
 
ironhead said:
Racism itself (the belief in superiority of one's race or ethnicity) is not a crime. It is atavistic, vacuous, and IMO morally bankrupt, but it is not a crime. A crime occurs when someone's rights are violated. Someone joining the KKK is not a crime; the KKK lynching someone or burning down their house are most certainly terrible crimes.

I reject all thought crimes, the label of which I believe we can comfortably apply to hate crimes. Moreover, imprisoning someone because they were motivated by racism to commit a crime does absolutely nothing to diminish racism in our society, its purported goal.
Click to expand...
Defining hate crimes is a small step in the overall agenda to control society. Watch for the next in that "hate groups" will be made illegal, as nazism is illegal in Germany. And it'll go downhill from there.
 
Threedee said:
Why? its vomit-inducing.
Click to expand...

Since KingRaw was allowed to keep his avatar of an aborted fetus, I can't see Dixie's pic as being nearly bad enough to warrant action.

Besides, I find your game avatar more disgusting. Gaming is one of the reasons some many of our kids are fat. So, in fact, your icon could be a symbol of more deaths than Dixie's.

Dixie has been racist that I have seen either. I think that you cling to your stereotypes of southerners. I have seen you post worse things about southerners than Dixie has posted about any race.
 
Good Luck said:
The Constitution is an absolute. It has a mechanism to change those aspects which no longer fit the needs of society. We have done so 27 times. The idea it can be reinterpreted by 9 men to fit differing ideas just opens us up to abuse by government - as is becoming more and more apparent as the years roll past.

Interpretation is certainly part of the process - but interpretation should be limited to interpreting a piece of legislation, and deciding whether it violates the limits of the constitution or not. Instead we have justices "interpreting" and "reinterpreting" how a section of the constitution "applies to modern society." It is simple: the Constitution says what it says. It applies to modern society exactly as it applied to past society. If that is not good enough, then add a 28th amendment.
Click to expand...

I'm no Constitutional scholar but that certainly is a reactionary view point the founding fathers never intended.

They did intend the Constitution to be the framework for self governance but they also knew that people and governments, who they represent are, dynamic. The Constitution was purposefully written by our founding fathers to be a living, working documents with the intent that it could and would change to meet changing conditions.

The problem with strict constructionism, as a judicial philosophy, is that like communism and supply side economics, it simply does not work.

Law as life has to many gray areas. It aint simply cut black and white not to mention that times change and so do the values of societies. For example our own values have been enlightened far beyond those held by our society in 1776.
 
Solitary said:
....

Dixie has been racist that I have seen either. I think that you cling to your stereotypes of southerners. I have seen you post worse things about southerners than Dixie has posted about any race.
Click to expand...
I think that you meant to say "hasn't been".

White southerners and Christians are allowed to be publicly denigrated by libs. That's how they define tolerance and open-mindedness.
 
Mottleydude said:
....For example our own values have been enlightened far beyond those held by our society in 1776.
Click to expand...
Yeah the teaching of sex education to first graders and the pornography on television, movies and the supermarket check out aisle are certainly good examples of this new enlightenment. :rolleyes:
 
Mottleydude said:
I'm no Constitutional scholar but that certainly is a reactionary view point the founding fathers never intended.

They did intend the Constitution to be the framework for self governance but they also knew that people and governments, who they represent are, dynamic. The Constitution was purposefully written by our founding fathers to be a living, working documents with the intent that it could and would change to meet changing conditions.

The problem with strict constructionism, as a judicial philosophy, is that like communism and supply side economics, it simply does not work.

Law as life has to many gray areas. It aint simply cut black and white not to mention that times change and so do the values of societies. For example our own values have been enlightened far beyond those held by our society in 1776.
Click to expand...
The constitution is an absolute because its entire purpose is to define precisely what government is and is not allowed to do. Society may change, but that is no reason to unfetter government and lose liberty in the process. It was NOT intended to be a "living document" under the modern liberal definition. Expansion of government (ie: changing the limits of the constitution) should never be taken lightly, as once a line is crossed the only way back is through violent revolution. Government will never willingly reliquish an additional power once it is granted them. Witness Obama's aabout face on the FISA issue. His vote was cast after he had a good chance at winning the democratic nomination - and thereby the presidency. So what does he do? He votes to keep that power.

Some things SHOULD be black and white, even in a world of grays. One of those black and white things is to draw a nice, solid, visible, black line on a white background that says "Government is NEVER allowed this power". THAT was the entire purpose of the Constitution, and as such IS an absolute document. If we see a need for change, then change it the way it was written to be changed.
 
Mottleydude said:
I'm no Constitutional scholar but that certainly is a reactionary view point the founding fathers never intended.

They did intend the Constitution to be the framework for self governance but they also knew that people and governments, who they represent are, dynamic. The Constitution was purposefully written by our founding fathers to be a living, working documents with the intent that it could and would change to meet changing conditions.

The problem with strict constructionism, as a judicial philosophy, is that like communism and supply side economics, it simply does not work.

Law as life has to many gray areas. It aint simply cut black and white not to mention that times change and so do the values of societies. For example our own values have been enlightened far beyond those held by our society in 1776.
Click to expand...

And we have made changes to the US Constitution. The methods for making changes are there.

They are not easy, but they exist.

I do not think making changes to the US Constitution SHOULD be easy.
 
Solitary said:
And we have made changes to the US Constitution. The methods for making changes are there.

They are not easy, but they exist.

I do not think making changes to the US Constitution SHOULD be easy.
Click to expand...

No way! It should be harder than hell!
 
Socrtease said:
Interpretation is absolutely vital to insuring that the document as written is not a toothless list of truisms. Example, the Fourth Amendment says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Notice that this Amendment says NOTHING about what is supposed to happen should a search be conducted without meeting the standard of the amendment. To me, common sense says that if you violate the above the search was not only illegal of it violated the constitution and anything you find in the course of that unconstitutional search should be excluded. However, after the Supreme Court actually pointed that out to people, individuals of the conservative ilk said that the exclusionary rule was judge made and that illegally and unconstitutionally gained evidence should be admissible against the person being prosecuted. If not for those "9 men" interpreting the constitution cops could kick your door in and obtain evidence without a warrant and it would be admissible against you. This is the flaw in the conservative belief that the mere words of the constitution are enough. I believe the founders were so smart that it never even occurred to them that the fruits of a search conducted in violation of the amendment would EVER be allowed in a court. Most of us live in a world where violation of rules have consequences. Cheaters never prosper and all that, but until Mapp v. Ohio it never seemed to occur to ANYONE that violating the Fourth Amendment should have negative consequences to the prosecution.
Click to expand...
If there are holes in the constitution, then they need to be plugged. But the proper way to plug them is with an amendment, not a court ruling. It is quite proper (and the very function) for SCOTUS to look a a law like the D.C. handgun ban, and compare the strictures of that law to the limitations set forth in the Constitution, and then declare that law unconstitutional because it violates the limitations on government placed in the Constitution. These are exactly the types of rulings SCOTUS was set up for - as arbiters to determine if government is staying within its established limits.

It is not proper that the court can, of itself, add to, or ESPECIALLY subtract from the limits of the Constitution as written. While I agree with the principles of the exclusionary rule, once it was found that the constitution did not cover the consequence of a constitutional violation, then that hole should have been plugged with an appropriate amendment. But just because the results of the ruling, in effect, made the 4th Amendment that much stronger does not mean the method used to arrive there was the correct way. Court rulings of this type have the effect of establishing a new law (which is why it is quite appropriately labeled legislating from the bench). That is NOT proper, no matter how GOOD the ruling is. The ends do not justify the means.
 
The 18th and 21 amendments are proof its a document that ebbs and flows as well is bound to be interpreted in differing ways throughout its exsistance.
 
Good Luck said:
If there are holes in the constitution, then they need to be plugged. But the proper way to plug them is with an amendment, not a court ruling. It is quite proper (and the very function) for SCOTUS to look a a law like the D.C. handgun ban, and compare the strictures of that law to the limitations set forth in the Constitution, and then declare that law unconstitutional because it violates the limitations on government placed in the Constitution. These are exactly the types of rulings SCOTUS was set up for - as arbiters to determine if government is staying within its established limits.

It is not proper that the court can, of itself, add to, or ESPECIALLY subtract from the limits of the Constitution as written. While I agree with the principles of the exclusionary rule, once it was found that the constitution did not cover the consequence of a constitutional violation, then that hole should have been plugged with an appropriate amendment. But just because the results of the ruling, in effect, made the 4th Amendment that much stronger does not mean the method used to arrive there was the correct way. Court rulings of this type have the effect of establishing a new law (which is why it is quite appropriately labeled legislating from the bench). That is NOT proper, no matter how GOOD the ruling is. The ends do not justify the means.
Click to expand...
Yes because that is what was going to happen. Legislators were going to PASS an amendment and then the states were going to ratify an amendment that would keep the government from using illegally and unconstitutionally gaine evidence and thus allowing the defendant to go free even though evidence of guilt was found in his house. There is no advantage to anyone to introduce, vote for or ratify that amendment. Shit for YEARS conservatives have said that ill gotten evidence SHOULD NOT be thown out. The warrant requirement was called a technicallity. Politicians are dead against doing ANYTHING that would look soft on crime and that is how conservatives would label any attempt to pass an amendment to the constitution putting the exclusionary rule in. This is why we have judges. They look at the law or the amendment and if the result contradicts the law or the right then they correct it. Remember the Bill of Rights are not GIVING you and I anything. Those are all rights we possess solely due to our exisitense. They cannot be given or taken away. So when a person is convicted using evidence that was obtained in violation of the 4th the state is taking something the consitution says it CANNOT.
 
Desh said:
The 18th and 21 amendments are proof its a document that ebbs and flows as well is bound to be interpreted in differing ways throughout its exsistance.
Click to expand...

WHAT???? those were amendments added according to the prescribed methods, not the 'interpretation' of a supreme court looking at a living document.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top