The constitution - A lesson and debate

Flash said:
I've read them plus many court cases shaping the interpretation. Flash and Archive do not have the contorted view of the Constitution a few JPP posters have which is not based on any historical, factual, or court interpretation.
Click to expand...

court cases are not supposed to 'shape the interpretation' because the courts do not have authority to change the constitution. the ONLY job the court has is to rule according to the constitution. the meaning of any article or amendment in the constitution is CLEARLY explained in the framers writings. anything that does not comport to that is unconstitutional, therefore null and void.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
court cases are not supposed to 'shape the interpretation' because the courts do not have authority to change the constitution. the ONLY job the court has is to rule according to the constitution. the meaning of any article or amendment in the constitution is CLEARLY explained in the framers writings. anything that does not comport to that is unconstitutional, therefore null and void.
Click to expand...

The meaning of the words and the writing of the framers are interpreted differently by judges, scholars, and others. The framers often had different interpretations and views from each other about what they had adopted. There is much not clearly explained and 200 years has brought about many changes that could not be foreseen.

What is a "reasonable" search did not include electronic surveillance or cell phones when the amendment was written and must be applied using today's circumstances which judges may disagree about. The interpretations they apply determines what is constitutional. They are not "changing" the Constitution but are determining the proper constitutional meaning--that is their function.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
it's obvious that some of you idiots, like flash and archives, went to the rocco clubbo school for constitutional meanings........

I gotta ask, did you morons even READ the Constitution, along with the numerous writings by the framers that explain very clearly what they meant by every fucking article and amendment? because if you didn't read them, READ THEM!!!!!!!!!

if you did read them and that's what you got out of it, go back to fucking school
Click to expand...

:laugh:

:thumbsup:
 
Flash said:
Sure it does. When it prohibits government from infringing any of our rights it enumerates those rights.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

These are some of the rights government cannot abridge and they are specifically enumerated so we know what they are.

Claiming "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are "inherent" rights are so broad and vague they would not stand up to constitutional validity. The Declaration does not have any legally binding provisions. Claiming using heroin is a liberty and pursuing my happiness would never pass muster.



It does more than describe how government must act, it prohibits government from infringing on any of these rights. Citizens (and NONCITIZENS) have the right to an attorney. Government cannot prohibit that "right."

And, the government certainly does guarantee those rights. If provides an attorney, jurors, subpoenas witnesses. If it fails to do so they have no conviction.



Your procedural rights come from the Constitution--there is nothing inherent about grand jury indictment, self-incrimination....These are more than just instructions about procedures but rights the government cannot deny.

Click to expand...

:eyeroll:
 
SmarterthanYou said:
court cases are not supposed to 'shape the interpretation' because the courts do not have authority to change the constitution. the ONLY job the court has is to rule according to the constitution. the meaning of any article or amendment in the constitution is CLEARLY explained in the framers writings. anything that does not comport to that is unconstitutional, therefore null and void.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
Flash said:
The meaning of the words and the writing of the framers are interpreted differently by judges, scholars, and others. The framers often had different interpretations and views from each other about what they had adopted. There is much not clearly explained and 200 years has brought about many changes that could not be foreseen.
Click to expand...

How does one "interpret" the meaning of words. There is nothing to "interpret" with the Constitution. It is very clear and understandable. Unless your a dullard or a progressive autocrat who foolishly believes that we need a "living" document whose intent and meaning changes with whatever political party is in charge at the time.

It is OBVIOUS what the Constitution is. A document that LIMITS governments infringement on our rights and liberties.

Flash said:
What is a "reasonable" search did not include electronic surveillance or cell phones when the amendment was written and must be applied using today's circumstances which judges may disagree about. The interpretations they apply determines what is constitutional. They are not "changing" the Constitution but are determining the proper constitutional meaning--that is their function.
Click to expand...

A dumb analogy. What difference does what type of technology one has when it comes to the intent between reasonable search and seizure?

“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."

Yep, covers cell phones and electronic surveillance. Any more dumb tropes?
 
Flash said:
The meaning of the words and the writing of the framers are interpreted differently by judges, scholars, and others. The framers often had different interpretations and views from each other about what they had adopted. There is much not clearly explained and 200 years has brought about many changes that could not be foreseen.
Click to expand...
the framers and ratifiers were all very clear on what they voted for with what was written. any 'interpretation' by judges, scholars, and others is null and void. those individuals, no matter their capacity or office has the authority to change the constitution.

Flash said:
What is a "reasonable" search did not include electronic surveillance or cell phones when the amendment was written and must be applied using today's circumstances which judges may disagree about. The interpretations they apply determines what is constitutional. They are not "changing" the Constitution but are determining the proper constitutional meaning--that is their function.
Click to expand...
again, the courts cannot interpret what the constitution means just because technology changes. WE THE PEOPLE wrote the Constitution and only we the people can change it through our representatives...........all else is null and void
 
Truth Detector said:
Every time Biden opens his lying mouth, he illustrates his ignorance of what the constitution is. Every time Democrats open their lying mouths they illustrate their ignorance of what the constitution is.

This is a Constitutional lesson missed by our failed leftist educational establishment

The Constitution is not about rights. Our rights are presumed to be God given. The Constitution LIMITS the governments power to intrude on those rights.

That is why gun bans are unconstitutional. Inferring that marriage is a right within the Constitution is false. Inferring that abortion is a right within the Constitution is false.

The 2nd amendment prevents the government from infringing on a God given right. It doesn’t just mean hunting rifles. It doesn’t just mean militia. It is mostly about self defense and preventing tyranny.

When I see idiots like Biden and miscreants like Whoopi Goldberg rant stupidly and ignorantly that the AR15 is not needed to hunt with, they should be slapped until the stupid drops out of them.

The AR15 is the most effective, light weight, easy to operate self defense weapon ever made. Period. So do the planet a favor leftist dunces and STFU about a topic you absolutely know nothing about.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you on this, it is entirely about the Militia.
 
It amazes me.. people like smarter than poo and the others. They bring up the Consitution and wave it in the air at times like these when their own bullshit has bought them some serious trouble.

These fucks.. like the OP, have been happily wiping their collective asses with the constituion right in front of all Americans for about 6 years.

How on God's Green Earth can they expect us to take them seriously?
 
Truth Detector said:
How does one "interpret" the meaning of words. There is nothing to "interpret" with the Constitution. It is very clear and understandable. Unless your a dullard or a progressive autocrat who foolishly believes that we need a "living" document whose intent and meaning changes with whatever political party is in charge at the time.

It is OBVIOUS what the Constitution is. A document that LIMITS governments infringement on our rights and liberties.



A dumb analogy. What difference does what type of technology one has when it comes to the intent between reasonable search and seizure?

“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."

Yep, covers cell phones and electronic surveillance. Any more dumb tropes?
Click to expand...

But somebody had to take the words from the Constitution and apply today's technology because the Constitution certainly doesn't contain that information. That is the job of the courts--to interpret it.
 
LurchAddams said:
It amazes me.. people like smarter than poo and the others. They bring up the Consitution and wave it in the air at times like these when their own bullshit has bought them some serious trouble.

These fucks.. like the OP, have been happily wiping their collective asses with the constituion right in front of all Americans for about 6 years.

How on God's Green Earth can they expect us to take them seriously?
Click to expand...

you couldn't look stupider right now if you tried.........
 
Flash said:
But somebody had to take the words from the Constitution and apply today's technology because the Constitution certainly doesn't contain that information. That is the job of the courts--to interpret it.
Click to expand...

wrong and wrong. the limitations on government don't change just because technology changes. the government did not write the constitution, we the people did.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the framers and ratifiers were all very clear on what they voted for with what was written. any 'interpretation' by judges, scholars, and others is null and void. those individuals, no matter their capacity or office has the authority to change the constitution.


again, the courts cannot interpret what the constitution means just because technology changes. WE THE PEOPLE wrote the Constitution and only we the people can change it through our representatives...........all else is null and void
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
LurchAddams said:
It amazes me.. people like smarter than poo and the others. They bring up the Consitution and wave it in the air at times like these when their own bullshit has bought them some serious trouble.

These fucks.. like the OP, have been happily wiping their collective asses with the constituion right in front of all Americans for about 6 years.

How on God's Green Earth can they expect us to take them seriously?
Click to expand...

pointless
adjective
point·less | \ ˈpȯint-ləs \
1: devoid of meaning : SENSELESS
a pointless remark
2: devoid of effectiveness : FLAT
pointless attempts to be funny

gib•ber•ish (ˈdʒɪb ər ɪʃ, ˈgɪb-)
n.
1. meaningless or unintelligible talk or writing; nonsense.
2. talk or writing containing many obscure, pretentious, or technical words.
 
Flash said:
But somebody had to take the words from the Constitution and apply today's technology because the Constitution certainly doesn't contain that information. That is the job of the courts--to interpret it.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Technology has nothing to do with the words contained within this document. They are clear. They are intended to limit Governments ability to infringe on our liberties and rights.

You can flail, deflect and pound your tiny little fists on the table all you want. But that is the simplicity of this document and what makes it the most timeless, brilliant document of Governance ever known to mankind. :palm:
 
SmarterthanYou said:
wrong and wrong. the limitations on government don't change just because technology changes. the government did not write the constitution, we the people did.
Click to expand...

The limitation on government applied to entering a person's property and seizing evidence. Electronic surveillance does not involve either of these, therefore, the meaning of illegal search and seizure had to be interpreted differently to include such surveillance.

Can my freedom of religion be used allow me to take illegal narcotics since the government cannot restrict my freedom?

"We the people" have no authority to interpret the Constitution. That is why it was put in writing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top