2nd Amendment should not be infringed upon because of Las Vegas shooter.

[Faun]

The Constitution defines itself as a "living Constitution."

No it does not.

Of course it does. It's a living Constitution in that it's subject to change. And the Constitution defines its own manner of change.

I don't know if you're more of a liar than you are an idiot or more of an idiot than a liar. You are here, as usual to troll me. You make an asinine statement; don't back it up with anything and expect a response.

I'm not playing your childish game on this thread. If you have something to say, say it.

LOL

You poor thing, bless your heart. Why do you blame me for your ignorance?

The Constitution itself backs me up. It contains the language required to alter it, rendering it a living Constitution.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.​

You're welcome for the free education.

Your dumb ass provided nothing except condescension and proof that the Constitution is NOT a living document, but must be amended by a very definitive number of people.

Moron.... that it can be amended establishes it as a living Constitution.

You really are a fucking retard to not grasp such a simple concept.

 

[danielpalos]

You are either organized and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.

Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

You are grasping at straws. The militia statute YOU cited defines both an organized and an unorganized militia. BOTH are recognized by the law YOU cited.

The law does not require the militia to be organized. Our founding fathers were fearful of standing armies and select militias.


“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2

As been demonstrated over and over and over again, danielpalos, THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER CREATES NOR CONTROLS NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, ABSOLUTE, INHERENT RIGHTS.

Please open your eyes and read the cited cases. The Second Amendment simply guarantees an existing Right with the primary beneficiary being the American people and the need to provide a bulwark against tyranny in government.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution and, as state courts ruled, that Right is above the law. Your meaningless posts don't change what the plain and simple law is.

The law is about a well regulated militia - NOT registered guns, NOT select militias, NOT a standing army. And how did they intend to regulate the militia? Check the Alexander Hamilton quote above and contrast it to this:

“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” Patrick Henry 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” Richard Henry Lee (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)

Do you see how each and every argument you're bringing to this thread are being systematically refuted?

You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.

Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions and available, via Due Process.

Appeals to ignorance? I'm sorry. I did not realize you were ignorant. But, I held out hope you could learn.

Natural Rights exist without Due Process. For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:

"The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states

this is the Point, dear: Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

First off, I'm not your dear. You need to hook up with that faggot, faun and have yourself a good old time.

Secondly, YOU are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment. You need to learn how to read.

I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you. The Right exists with or without the Constitution. The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does not grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it. The militia is what is subject to regulation, NOT the Right to keep and bear Arms.

Thank you for admitting natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

Two of the greatest board trolls on the Internet have now entered this thread. If we are to be subjected to the insanity of faun and danielpalos, this thread is done. Maybe they can hook up and be happy we were able to introduce them.

At the end of the day, nothing has changed. As John Adams, second president of the United States, stated:

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed.”

In law, the terminology of natural rights (sic), unalienable Rights, absolute, inherent, and God given are all synonymous. Under the de jure / lawful / constitutional interpretation of our Constitution you have Rights that are above the government's law making power. You are not required to give up those Rights and if the government expects that, you have a Duty, an Obligation, and the Right to rebel against tyranny in government. That is the bottom line.

You have to give up some natural rights to give that power to government. We have a Constitution for that.

 

[Humorme]

No it does not.

Of course it does. It's a living Constitution in that it's subject to change. And the Constitution defines its own manner of change.

I don't know if you're more of a liar than you are an idiot or more of an idiot than a liar. You are here, as usual to troll me. You make an asinine statement; don't back it up with anything and expect a response.

I'm not playing your childish game on this thread. If you have something to say, say it.

LOL

You poor thing, bless your heart. Why do you blame me for your ignorance?

The Constitution itself backs me up. It contains the language required to alter it, rendering it a living Constitution.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.​

You're welcome for the free education.

Your dumb ass provided nothing except condescension and proof that the Constitution is NOT a living document, but must be amended by a very definitive number of people.

Moron.... that it can be amended establishes it as a living Constitution.

You really are a fucking retard to not grasp such a simple concept.

You're the moron. What you just said proves, unequivocally, that the Constitution is NOT a living document, but must be amended through a legal process instead of being reinterpreted every few months by the courts.

 

[Humorme]

You are grasping at straws. The militia statute YOU cited defines both an organized and an unorganized militia. BOTH are recognized by the law YOU cited.

The law does not require the militia to be organized. Our founding fathers were fearful of standing armies and select militias.


“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2

As been demonstrated over and over and over again, danielpalos, THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER CREATES NOR CONTROLS NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, ABSOLUTE, INHERENT RIGHTS.

Please open your eyes and read the cited cases. The Second Amendment simply guarantees an existing Right with the primary beneficiary being the American people and the need to provide a bulwark against tyranny in government.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution and, as state courts ruled, that Right is above the law. Your meaningless posts don't change what the plain and simple law is.

The law is about a well regulated militia - NOT registered guns, NOT select militias, NOT a standing army. And how did they intend to regulate the militia? Check the Alexander Hamilton quote above and contrast it to this:

“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” Patrick Henry 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” Richard Henry Lee (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)

Do you see how each and every argument you're bringing to this thread are being systematically refuted?

You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.

Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions and available, via Due Process.

Appeals to ignorance? I'm sorry. I did not realize you were ignorant. But, I held out hope you could learn.

Natural Rights exist without Due Process. For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:

"The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states

this is the Point, dear: Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

First off, I'm not your dear. You need to hook up with that faggot, faun and have yourself a good old time.

Secondly, YOU are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment. You need to learn how to read.

I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you. The Right exists with or without the Constitution. The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does not grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it. The militia is what is subject to regulation, NOT the Right to keep and bear Arms.

Thank you for admitting natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

Natural Rights don't have to be covered by the Second Amendment. You already have the Rights. All the Bill of Rights does is limit what government can do to the individual.

 

[Humorme]

Two of the greatest board trolls on the Internet have now entered this thread. If we are to be subjected to the insanity of faun and danielpalos, this thread is done. Maybe they can hook up and be happy we were able to introduce them.

At the end of the day, nothing has changed. As John Adams, second president of the United States, stated:

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed.”

In law, the terminology of natural rights (sic), unalienable Rights, absolute, inherent, and God given are all synonymous. Under the de jure / lawful / constitutional interpretation of our Constitution you have Rights that are above the government's law making power. You are not required to give up those Rights and if the government expects that, you have a Duty, an Obligation, and the Right to rebel against tyranny in government. That is the bottom line.

You have to give up some natural rights to give that power to government. We have a Constitution for that.

Unalienable Rights cannot be forfeited. That is the whole meaning of the word. Government cannot take away certain Rights and you have no authority to give them up. Furthermore, the courts have ruled that unalienable, inherent, natural and absolute are all the same thing.

 

[Faun]

Of course it does. It's a living Constitution in that it's subject to change. And the Constitution defines its own manner of change.

I don't know if you're more of a liar than you are an idiot or more of an idiot than a liar. You are here, as usual to troll me. You make an asinine statement; don't back it up with anything and expect a response.

I'm not playing your childish game on this thread. If you have something to say, say it.

LOL

You poor thing, bless your heart. Why do you blame me for your ignorance?

The Constitution itself backs me up. It contains the language required to alter it, rendering it a living Constitution.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.​

You're welcome for the free education.

Your dumb ass provided nothing except condescension and proof that the Constitution is NOT a living document, but must be amended by a very definitive number of people.

Moron.... that it can be amended establishes it as a living Constitution.

You really are a fucking retard to not grasp such a simple concept.

You're the moron. What you just said proves, unequivocally, that the Constitution is NOT a living document, but must be amended through a legal process instead of being reinterpreted every few months by the courts.

Moron...

The ability to amend it establishes it as a living Constitution. You pointing to the process does not change that. If it were not a living Constitution, there would be no process to amend it.

 

[Humorme]

I don't know if you're more of a liar than you are an idiot or more of an idiot than a liar. You are here, as usual to troll me. You make an asinine statement; don't back it up with anything and expect a response.

I'm not playing your childish game on this thread. If you have something to say, say it.

LOL

You poor thing, bless your heart. Why do you blame me for your ignorance?

The Constitution itself backs me up. It contains the language required to alter it, rendering it a living Constitution.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.​

You're welcome for the free education.

Your dumb ass provided nothing except condescension and proof that the Constitution is NOT a living document, but must be amended by a very definitive number of people.

Moron.... that it can be amended establishes it as a living Constitution.

You really are a fucking retard to not grasp such a simple concept.

You're the moron. What you just said proves, unequivocally, that the Constitution is NOT a living document, but must be amended through a legal process instead of being reinterpreted every few months by the courts.

Moron...

The ability to amend it establishes it as a living Constitution. You pointing to the process does not change that. If it were not a living Constitution, there would be no process to amend it.

You need to take some remedial classes in social civics.

The "Living Document" reference refers to the meaning of the Constitution constantly changing. Therefore, you have unelected potentates called judges that say the words mean this today and the polar opposite the very next day.

The converse argument of that position was made by George Washington. He understood the argument behind the "Living Document" concept long before modernists gave it that name. Washington stated:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

GEORGE WASHINGTON, farewell address, Sep. 19, 1796


Read more at George Washington Quotes II

 

[Faun]

LOL

You poor thing, bless your heart. Why do you blame me for your ignorance?

The Constitution itself backs me up. It contains the language required to alter it, rendering it a living Constitution.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.​

You're welcome for the free education.

Your dumb ass provided nothing except condescension and proof that the Constitution is NOT a living document, but must be amended by a very definitive number of people.

Moron.... that it can be amended establishes it as a living Constitution.

You really are a fucking retard to not grasp such a simple concept.

You're the moron. What you just said proves, unequivocally, that the Constitution is NOT a living document, but must be amended through a legal process instead of being reinterpreted every few months by the courts.

Moron...

The ability to amend it establishes it as a living Constitution. You pointing to the process does not change that. If it were not a living Constitution, there would be no process to amend it.

You need to take some remedial classes in social civics.

The "Living Document" reference refers to the meaning of the Constitution constantly changing. Therefore, you have unelected potentates called judges that say the words mean this today and the polar opposite the very next day.

The converse argument of that position was made by George Washington. He understood the argument behind the "Living Document" concept long before modernists gave it that name. Washington stated:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

GEORGE WASHINGTON, farewell address, Sep. 19, 1796


Read more at George Washington Quotes II

Aww, you poor,****** ****. A living document is one which can be altered. The process, as you pointed to earlier, is irrelevant. The frequency in which it’s changed, as you point to now, is irrelevant.

Living Constitution Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

 

[Humorme]

You are either organized and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.

Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

You are grasping at straws. The militia statute YOU cited defines both an organized and an unorganized militia. BOTH are recognized by the law YOU cited.

The law does not require the militia to be organized. Our founding fathers were fearful of standing armies and select militias.


“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2

As been demonstrated over and over and over again, danielpalos, THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER CREATES NOR CONTROLS NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, ABSOLUTE, INHERENT RIGHTS.

Please open your eyes and read the cited cases. The Second Amendment simply guarantees an existing Right with the primary beneficiary being the American people and the need to provide a bulwark against tyranny in government.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution and, as state courts ruled, that Right is above the law. Your meaningless posts don't change what the plain and simple law is.

The law is about a well regulated militia - NOT registered guns, NOT select militias, NOT a standing army. And how did they intend to regulate the militia? Check the Alexander Hamilton quote above and contrast it to this:

“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” Patrick Henry 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” Richard Henry Lee (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)

Do you see how each and every argument you're bringing to this thread are being systematically refuted?

You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.

Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions and available, via Due Process.

Appeals to ignorance? I'm sorry. I did not realize you were ignorant. But, I held out hope you could learn.

Natural Rights exist without Due Process. For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:

"The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states

this is the Point, dear: Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

Unnecessarily vulgar insult deleted.

Secondly, YOU are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment. You need to learn how to read.

I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you. The Right exists with or without the Constitution. The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does not grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it. The militia is what is subject to regulation, NOT the Right to keep and bear Arms.

Your dumb ass provided nothing except condescension and proof that the Constitution is NOT a living document, but must be amended by a very definitive number of people.

Moron.... that it can be amended establishes it as a living Constitution.

You really are a fucking retard to not grasp such a simple concept.

You're the moron. What you just said proves, unequivocally, that the Constitution is NOT a living document, but must be amended through a legal process instead of being reinterpreted every few months by the courts.

Moron...

The ability to amend it establishes it as a living Constitution. You pointing to the process does not change that. If it were not a living Constitution, there would be no process to amend it.

You need to take some remedial classes in social civics.

The "Living Document" reference refers to the meaning of the Constitution constantly changing. Therefore, you have unelected potentates called judges that say the words mean this today and the polar opposite the very next day.

The converse argument of that position was made by George Washington. He understood the argument behind the "Living Document" concept long before modernists gave it that name. Washington stated:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

GEORGE WASHINGTON, farewell address, Sep. 19, 1796


Read more at George Washington Quotes II

Aww, you poor, demented cuck. A living document is one which can be altered. The process, as you pointed to earlier, is irrelevant. The frequency in which it’s changed, as you point to now, is irrelevant.

Living Constitution Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Let's fix your ignorance.

To quote an article on this subject:

"Other proponents of a living Constitution believe that the document was written with broad language that allows for a changing interpretation. Former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan articulated this view as the Constitution's "majestic generalities": The document's language is often intentionally vague, which allows its interpretation to change. This, however, is very different from the living document theory that relies on social change. In the broad language approach, flexibility is written into the Constitution, and does not require outside social changes to justify a new interpretation"

http://classroom.synonym.com/the-united-states-constitution-living-document-mean-20982.htm

When the courts change the interpretation via changes in society, you have a "living Constitution." It is not a living document if the change is done via an Amendment.

Here is another view:

"In United States constitutional interpretation, the Living Constitution is the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes. The controversial idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases. While the arguments for the Living Constitution vary, they can generally be broken into two categories. First, the pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary. The second, relating to intent, contends that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document. Opponents of the idea often argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that allowing judges to determine an ever-changing meaning of the constitution undermines democracy. The primary alternative to the Living Constitution is most commonly described as originalism."

What does Living Constitution mean?

 

[Faun]

You are grasping at straws. The militia statute YOU cited defines both an organized and an unorganized militia. BOTH are recognized by the law YOU cited.

The law does not require the militia to be organized. Our founding fathers were fearful of standing armies and select militias.


“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2

As been demonstrated over and over and over again, danielpalos, THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER CREATES NOR CONTROLS NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, ABSOLUTE, INHERENT RIGHTS.

Please open your eyes and read the cited cases. The Second Amendment simply guarantees an existing Right with the primary beneficiary being the American people and the need to provide a bulwark against tyranny in government.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution and, as state courts ruled, that Right is above the law. Your meaningless posts don't change what the plain and simple law is.

The law is about a well regulated militia - NOT registered guns, NOT select militias, NOT a standing army. And how did they intend to regulate the militia? Check the Alexander Hamilton quote above and contrast it to this:

“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” Patrick Henry 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” Richard Henry Lee (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)

Do you see how each and every argument you're bringing to this thread are being systematically refuted?

You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.

Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions and available, via Due Process.

Appeals to ignorance? I'm sorry. I did not realize you were ignorant. But, I held out hope you could learn.

Natural Rights exist without Due Process. For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:

"The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states

this is the Point, dear: Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

Unnecessarily vulgar insult deleted.

Secondly, YOU are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment. You need to learn how to read.

I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you. The Right exists with or without the Constitution. The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does not grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it. The militia is what is subject to regulation, NOT the Right to keep and bear Arms.

Moron.... that it can be amended establishes it as a living Constitution.

You really are a fucking retard to not grasp such a simple concept.

You're the moron. What you just said proves, unequivocally, that the Constitution is NOT a living document, but must be amended through a legal process instead of being reinterpreted every few months by the courts.

Moron...

The ability to amend it establishes it as a living Constitution. You pointing to the process does not change that. If it were not a living Constitution, there would be no process to amend it.

You need to take some remedial classes in social civics.

The "Living Document" reference refers to the meaning of the Constitution constantly changing. Therefore, you have unelected potentates called judges that say the words mean this today and the polar opposite the very next day.

The converse argument of that position was made by George Washington. He understood the argument behind the "Living Document" concept long before modernists gave it that name. Washington stated:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

GEORGE WASHINGTON, farewell address, Sep. 19, 1796


Read more at George Washington Quotes II

Aww, you poor, demented cuck. A living document is one which can be altered. The process, as you pointed to earlier, is irrelevant. The frequency in which it’s changed, as you point to now, is irrelevant.

Living Constitution Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Let's fix your ignorance.

To quote an article on this subject:

"Other proponents of a living Constitution believe that the document was written with broad language that allows for a changing interpretation. Former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan articulated this view as the Constitution's "majestic generalities": The document's language is often intentionally vague, which allows its interpretation to change. This, however, is very different from the living document theory that relies on social change. In the broad language approach, flexibility is written into the Constitution, and does not require outside social changes to justify a new interpretation"

http://classroom.synonym.com/the-united-states-constitution-living-document-mean-20982.htm

When the courts change the interpretation via changes in society, you have a "living Constitution." It is not a living document if the change is done via an Amendment.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you??

That’s not even what I’m arguing.

I said absolutely nothing about the Judicial branch.

Here is another view:

"In United States constitutional interpretation, the Living Constitution is the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes. The controversial idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases. While the arguments for the Living Constitution vary, they can generally be broken into two categories. First, the pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary. The second, relating to intent, contends that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document. Opponents of the idea often argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that allowing judges to determine an ever-changing meaning of the constitution undermines democracy. The primary alternative to the Living Constitution is most commonly described as originalism."

What does Living Constitution mean?

I’m also not saying it’s intentionally dynamic, to be left open to interpretation.

That’s now your third failed interpretation of what you think I said. It’s adorable how you have no fucking clue what I said — but you’re sure I’m wrong.

 

[danielpalos]

You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.

Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions and available, via Due Process.

Appeals to ignorance? I'm sorry. I did not realize you were ignorant. But, I held out hope you could learn.

Natural Rights exist without Due Process. For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:

"The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states

this is the Point, dear: Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

First off, I'm not your dear. You need to hook up with that faggot, faun and have yourself a good old time.

Secondly, YOU are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment. You need to learn how to read.

I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you. The Right exists with or without the Constitution. The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does not grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it. The militia is what is subject to regulation, NOT the Right to keep and bear Arms.

Thank you for admitting natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

Natural Rights don't have to be covered by the Second Amendment. You already have the Rights. All the Bill of Rights does is limit what government can do to the individual.

natural rights are covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[danielpalos]

Two of the greatest board trolls on the Internet have now entered this thread. If we are to be subjected to the insanity of faun and danielpalos, this thread is done. Maybe they can hook up and be happy we were able to introduce them.

At the end of the day, nothing has changed. As John Adams, second president of the United States, stated:

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed.”

In law, the terminology of natural rights (sic), unalienable Rights, absolute, inherent, and God given are all synonymous. Under the de jure / lawful / constitutional interpretation of our Constitution you have Rights that are above the government's law making power. You are not required to give up those Rights and if the government expects that, you have a Duty, an Obligation, and the Right to rebel against tyranny in government. That is the bottom line.

You have to give up some natural rights to give that power to government. We have a Constitution for that.

Unalienable Rights cannot be forfeited. That is the whole meaning of the word. Government cannot take away certain Rights and you have no authority to give them up. Furthermore, the courts have ruled that unalienable, inherent, natural and absolute are all the same thing.

We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; there is no "right to rebel against government tyranny".

 

[Humorme]

You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.

Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions and available, via Due Process.

Appeals to ignorance? I'm sorry. I did not realize you were ignorant. But, I held out hope you could learn.

Natural Rights exist without Due Process. For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:

"The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states

this is the Point, dear: Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

Unnecessarily vulgar insult deleted.

Secondly, YOU are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment. You need to learn how to read.

I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you. The Right exists with or without the Constitution. The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does not grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it. The militia is what is subject to regulation, NOT the Right to keep and bear Arms.

You're the moron. What you just said proves, unequivocally, that the Constitution is NOT a living document, but must be amended through a legal process instead of being reinterpreted every few months by the courts.

Moron...

The ability to amend it establishes it as a living Constitution. You pointing to the process does not change that. If it were not a living Constitution, there would be no process to amend it.

You need to take some remedial classes in social civics.

The "Living Document" reference refers to the meaning of the Constitution constantly changing. Therefore, you have unelected potentates called judges that say the words mean this today and the polar opposite the very next day.

The converse argument of that position was made by George Washington. He understood the argument behind the "Living Document" concept long before modernists gave it that name. Washington stated:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

GEORGE WASHINGTON, farewell address, Sep. 19, 1796


Read more at George Washington Quotes II

Aww, you poor, demented cuck. A living document is one which can be altered. The process, as you pointed to earlier, is irrelevant. The frequency in which it’s changed, as you point to now, is irrelevant.

Living Constitution Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Let's fix your ignorance.

To quote an article on this subject:

"Other proponents of a living Constitution believe that the document was written with broad language that allows for a changing interpretation. Former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan articulated this view as the Constitution's "majestic generalities": The document's language is often intentionally vague, which allows its interpretation to change. This, however, is very different from the living document theory that relies on social change. In the broad language approach, flexibility is written into the Constitution, and does not require outside social changes to justify a new interpretation"

http://classroom.synonym.com/the-united-states-constitution-living-document-mean-20982.htm

When the courts change the interpretation via changes in society, you have a "living Constitution." It is not a living document if the change is done via an Amendment.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you??

That’s not even what I’m arguing.

I said absolutely nothing about the Judicial branch.

Here is another view:

"In United States constitutional interpretation, the Living Constitution is the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes. The controversial idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases. While the arguments for the Living Constitution vary, they can generally be broken into two categories. First, the pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary. The second, relating to intent, contends that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document. Opponents of the idea often argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that allowing judges to determine an ever-changing meaning of the constitution undermines democracy. The primary alternative to the Living Constitution is most commonly described as originalism."

What does Living Constitution mean?

I’m also not saying it’s intentionally dynamic, to be left open to interpretation.

That’s now your third failed interpretation of what you think I said. It’s adorable how you have no fucking clue what I said — but you’re sure I’m wrong.

do you think that all that nasty shit you talk makes you look intelligent? Do the posters here realize that you talk a lot of it and when somebody calls you out, you run like a scalded dog and cry to the moderators?

You get to post nasty ass insults and try to start fights, but you lack the courage and the common sense to deal with it.

Since you do not understand this conversation, you should have enough sense to STFU and quit rattling my cage.

 

[Humorme]

Two of the greatest board trolls on the Internet have now entered this thread. If we are to be subjected to the insanity of faun and danielpalos, this thread is done. Maybe they can hook up and be happy we were able to introduce them.

At the end of the day, nothing has changed. As John Adams, second president of the United States, stated:

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed.”

In law, the terminology of natural rights (sic), unalienable Rights, absolute, inherent, and God given are all synonymous. Under the de jure / lawful / constitutional interpretation of our Constitution you have Rights that are above the government's law making power. You are not required to give up those Rights and if the government expects that, you have a Duty, an Obligation, and the Right to rebel against tyranny in government. That is the bottom line.

You have to give up some natural rights to give that power to government. We have a Constitution for that.

Unalienable Rights cannot be forfeited. That is the whole meaning of the word. Government cannot take away certain Rights and you have no authority to give them up. Furthermore, the courts have ruled that unalienable, inherent, natural and absolute are all the same thing.

We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; there is no "right to rebel against government tyranny".

You out of your mind.

"."But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security..." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

History shows us that the founding fathers exhausted all of their non-violent political and legal avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions. After exhausting all those avenues, they resorted to civil disobedience and passive resistance. Then, when they were provoked by violence, they reacted in like kind.

The founding fathers taught by example. Furthermore, our country was built upon those foundational principles just described so, once again danielpalos, YOU FAIL.

 

[Humorme]

Appeals to ignorance? I'm sorry. I did not realize you were ignorant. But, I held out hope you could learn.

Natural Rights exist without Due Process. For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:

"The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states

this is the Point, dear: Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

First off, I'm not your dear. You need to hook up with that faggot, faun and have yourself a good old time.

Secondly, YOU are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment. You need to learn how to read.

I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you. The Right exists with or without the Constitution. The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does not grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it. The militia is what is subject to regulation, NOT the Right to keep and bear Arms.

Thank you for admitting natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

Natural Rights don't have to be covered by the Second Amendment. You already have the Rights. All the Bill of Rights does is limit what government can do to the individual.

natural rights are covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You've already been proven wrong once before. There is NO due process involved if you want to exercise a constitutional guarantee.

You don't have to go and petition courts in order to join a church

 

[Faun]

Appeals to ignorance? I'm sorry. I did not realize you were ignorant. But, I held out hope you could learn.

Natural Rights exist without Due Process. For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:

"The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states

this is the Point, dear: Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

Unnecessarily vulgar insult deleted.

Secondly, YOU are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment. You need to learn how to read.

I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you. The Right exists with or without the Constitution. The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does not grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it. The militia is what is subject to regulation, NOT the Right to keep and bear Arms.

Moron...

The ability to amend it establishes it as a living Constitution. You pointing to the process does not change that. If it were not a living Constitution, there would be no process to amend it.

You need to take some remedial classes in social civics.

The "Living Document" reference refers to the meaning of the Constitution constantly changing. Therefore, you have unelected potentates called judges that say the words mean this today and the polar opposite the very next day.

The converse argument of that position was made by George Washington. He understood the argument behind the "Living Document" concept long before modernists gave it that name. Washington stated:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

GEORGE WASHINGTON, farewell address, Sep. 19, 1796


Read more at George Washington Quotes II

Aww, you poor, demented cuck. A living document is one which can be altered. The process, as you pointed to earlier, is irrelevant. The frequency in which it’s changed, as you point to now, is irrelevant.

Living Constitution Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Let's fix your ignorance.

To quote an article on this subject:

"Other proponents of a living Constitution believe that the document was written with broad language that allows for a changing interpretation. Former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan articulated this view as the Constitution's "majestic generalities": The document's language is often intentionally vague, which allows its interpretation to change. This, however, is very different from the living document theory that relies on social change. In the broad language approach, flexibility is written into the Constitution, and does not require outside social changes to justify a new interpretation"

http://classroom.synonym.com/the-united-states-constitution-living-document-mean-20982.htm

When the courts change the interpretation via changes in society, you have a "living Constitution." It is not a living document if the change is done via an Amendment.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you??

That’s not even what I’m arguing.

I said absolutely nothing about the Judicial branch.

Here is another view:

"In United States constitutional interpretation, the Living Constitution is the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes. The controversial idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases. While the arguments for the Living Constitution vary, they can generally be broken into two categories. First, the pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary. The second, relating to intent, contends that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document. Opponents of the idea often argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that allowing judges to determine an ever-changing meaning of the constitution undermines democracy. The primary alternative to the Living Constitution is most commonly described as originalism."

What does Living Constitution mean?

I’m also not saying it’s intentionally dynamic, to be left open to interpretation.

That’s now your third failed interpretation of what you think I said. It’s adorable how you have no fucking clue what I said — but you’re sure I’m wrong.

do you think that all that nasty shit you talk makes you look intelligent? Do the posters here realize that you talk a lot of it and when somebody calls you out, you run like a scalded dog and cry to the moderators?

You get to post nasty ass insults and try to start fights, but you lack the courage and the common sense to deal with it.

Since you do not understand this conversation, you should have enough sense to STFU and quit rattling my cage.

I didn't start a fight, ya flaming putz. But I don't take shit from cucks like you either. Meanwhile, I gave you the definition of a living document. It matters not if you lack the brain matter to understand.

 

[Humorme]

this is the Point, dear: Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.

Unnecessarily vulgar insult deleted.

Secondly, YOU are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment. You need to learn how to read.

I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you. The Right exists with or without the Constitution. The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does not grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it. The militia is what is subject to regulation, NOT the Right to keep and bear Arms.

You need to take some remedial classes in social civics.

The "Living Document" reference refers to the meaning of the Constitution constantly changing. Therefore, you have unelected potentates called judges that say the words mean this today and the polar opposite the very next day.

The converse argument of that position was made by George Washington. He understood the argument behind the "Living Document" concept long before modernists gave it that name. Washington stated:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

GEORGE WASHINGTON, farewell address, Sep. 19, 1796


Read more at George Washington Quotes II

Aww, you poor, demented cuck. A living document is one which can be altered. The process, as you pointed to earlier, is irrelevant. The frequency in which it’s changed, as you point to now, is irrelevant.

Living Constitution Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Let's fix your ignorance.

To quote an article on this subject:

"Other proponents of a living Constitution believe that the document was written with broad language that allows for a changing interpretation. Former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan articulated this view as the Constitution's "majestic generalities": The document's language is often intentionally vague, which allows its interpretation to change. This, however, is very different from the living document theory that relies on social change. In the broad language approach, flexibility is written into the Constitution, and does not require outside social changes to justify a new interpretation"

http://classroom.synonym.com/the-united-states-constitution-living-document-mean-20982.htm

When the courts change the interpretation via changes in society, you have a "living Constitution." It is not a living document if the change is done via an Amendment.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you??

That’s not even what I’m arguing.

I said absolutely nothing about the Judicial branch.

Here is another view:

"In United States constitutional interpretation, the Living Constitution is the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes. The controversial idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases. While the arguments for the Living Constitution vary, they can generally be broken into two categories. First, the pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary. The second, relating to intent, contends that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document. Opponents of the idea often argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that allowing judges to determine an ever-changing meaning of the constitution undermines democracy. The primary alternative to the Living Constitution is most commonly described as originalism."

What does Living Constitution mean?

I’m also not saying it’s intentionally dynamic, to be left open to interpretation.

That’s now your third failed interpretation of what you think I said. It’s adorable how you have no fucking clue what I said — but you’re sure I’m wrong.

do you think that all that nasty shit you talk makes you look intelligent? Do the posters here realize that you talk a lot of it and when somebody calls you out, you run like a scalded dog and cry to the moderators?

You get to post nasty ass insults and try to start fights, but you lack the courage and the common sense to deal with it.

Since you do not understand this conversation, you should have enough sense to STFU and quit rattling my cage.

I didn't start a fight, ya flaming putz. But I don't take shit from cucks like you either. Meanwhile, I gave you the definition of a living document. It matters not if you lack the brain matter to understand.

REPORTED BEFORE RESPONDING TO YOU

 

[Faun]

LOL

Do the posters here realize that you talk a lot of it and when somebody calls you out, you run like a scalded dog and cry to the moderators?

REPORTED BEFORE RESPONDING TO YOU

 

[Coyote]

Let's get back ON TOPIC folks and not derail the thread. There's some good discussion going on.