A Majority of people polled want the Supremes to rule based upon what the Constitution means today.

[OKTexas]

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

By today's standards, the FFs are the barbarous ancestors. Thomas Jefferson had the foresight to know that.

The founders recognized that. It is why the Constitution has the ability to be amended. The founders did not intend it to be gospel, and gave us the mechanism to change the highest law of the land. Courts are responsible for interpreting the principles of the Constitution as it applies to real life. They aren’t supposed to change it or amend it by judicial decision.

That argument died with Marbury, and, it will never be resurrected.

Oh right, the case where the supremes assumed powers not granted them by the Constitution. Just more proof that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.


.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

You're nuts. So, you are OK with a judge determining that the constitution in 2018 should mean "X"?

In times of yore, an identification of a criminal, to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" required an eye witness to put them at the crime scene. Later, a latent finger print could provide adequate proof. Now a single hair left at the scene can suffice. If you asked if a hair or a fingerprint left at the scene could identify somebody "beyond a reasonable doubt" when the constitution was written, they would have laughed in your face.

Irrelevant, you still have to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing has changed.

Except that the bar on what constitutes 'reasonable doubt' has risen considerably in the last 200+ years.

 

[Flash]

Liberals hate the Constitution.

The Constitution was written by men who had strong Libertarian leanings. It was designed to provide for individual liberty protection against government tyranny. The men understood that Democracy could produce tyranny against individual liberty just like other forms of government. After all, Democracy is mob rule. That is why we have a Representative Constitutional Republic with a Bill of Rights. Great concept. Very revolutionary for its day.

Liberals hate the concept of individual Liberty. They want collective tyranny. The Constitution is an impediment into making the US a socialist shithole and they don't like it. They would much rather have a Communist Manifesto than a Bill of Rights.

 

[there4eyeM]

Language evolves. Thinking evolves. Meaning evolves.
The dead do not evolve.

 

[OKTexas]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

For years now people like myself have been pointing out that the asinine arguments of the anti-gunners that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard, what they see as the “Militia” is wrong. We have been pointing out with links, and articles, that the Militia at the time the Constitution was Ratified, was every single person. Ok, actually it was every able bodied free man. But that is because Women and Slaves were not considered for the right. A belief fixed by Amendments later on.

Well the good news is that people are obviously learning. The bad news, they still don’t want those rules to apply to Supreme Court Decisions. Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working. Those of us who keep trying to educate our fellow citizens should feel gratified that our efforts are showing results. Now, if we could only explain to them that the words used were an effort to capture an ideal, a principle intended to guide us, then we would be better off.

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution

He was right. The Consititution sets out things that may never be taken from someone, things that they may never endure at the hands of their Government. The Government may not abridge your Freedom of Speech, it may not prevent you form worshipping in your own way. Everything in there are things it can’t do.

The Constitution was never intended to limit the citizenry, but to limit the power of the Government. Those are the Negative Rights that Obama talked about. The Government can’t just walk in and search your home, and go through your stuff on a whim. It must have a Warrant.

Every time the Supreme Court rules that there are exceptions, those negative rights get weaker. Those exceptions should be in the most extreme circumstances, never the standard by which we remove even more of your rights.

I feel good that people are learning the truth about the history of the Constitution. Now it is time to start explaining why the Constitution is set up the way it is. If you want a more modern reading of a right, then we have a process for that. It is called an Amendment. Those are very hard to get because they should be. It should be hard to place restrictions on the people. It should be hard to take away their rights. It should be damned near impossible to remove a right from an individual in this nation.

More people are learning what, now it is time to teach them why.

Thanks for the link..very informative. I don't agree with your interpretation of the results though. It seems to me..that what people are saying they are in favor of is the 'living document' point of view. I agree with this. I don't think the Founder's points of view, from the 18th century...should rule absolute in our 21st century world. I agree that the ideals stand..and should continue to be respected. Even as they are reinterpreted in our modern context. By the SCOTUS.

I think that those who are advocates of the rigid Constitutional model are on the wrong side of both history and legal precedent.

The job of the supremes is to apply the Constitution as written, if the body politic chooses to change it, that's what Article 5 is for. The Constitution is a contract between the States, SCOTUS was a creation of that contract, they have no authority to unilaterally change the contract.


.

 

[there4eyeM]

The presence in the Constitution of the method to amend it is argument enough that the 'founders' were realists. They understood that they didn't know what the future might hold and that people would change.
Documents are only words. Words are symbols. Symbols are relative. Those who cannot understand that are handicapped.

 

[OKTexas]

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

By today's standards, the FFs are the barbarous ancestors. Thomas Jefferson had the foresight to know that.

Yep, that's why they included Article 5. Commies prefer the courts.


.

Courts who USURPED a power not granted by the Constitution they seek to pervert.

Yep, if the founder saw the leviathan we call the federal government today and all the ways it intrudes on the daily lives of our citizens, they'd be calling for another revolution. Madison said it best:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45


.

 

[OKTexas]

OK, you are the one who is wrong on this.

Feel free to point to my mistake in the verbiage of the contract. Or you could provide the agreement to the alteration, signed by the parties to the contract. Those are the only ways to prove me wrong..

Your errors have been rebutted many times with factual, objective evidence, and you simply go to the equivalent of "nuh uh, what about you."

(1) The OP is correct about how the majority want the Constitution handled in American law.

(2) SCOTUS has made it clear that it will decide how to do that, not the far right.

Yet you can't demonstrate what in the Constitution gives the feds the right to regulate the potted tomato plant on your patio. Other than unelected lawyers says they can. Good job, commie.


.

Wow..I wonder if you actually read what you write? We, the people, decide...and we have said, over time, that the Federal govt. can do certain things..you may or may not agree, but our government governs with the permission of the governed. You can, and no doubt will, argue that, yet it is the reality.

This may shock you, but there is more to the philosophical and legal underpinnings of our country..than just the Constitution.

BTW..I find it amusing...this insistence on referring to the SCOTUS as 'unelected lawyers' in a discussion of the very Constitution that established their authority as one of the Branches of our govt..

You're a freaking moron, the court established their own authority and they are granting themselves more power every year. The supreme court was established by the Constitution to hold the government within the limits set forth in the document, not grant the government leave to ignore those limits.

The federal government is a product of the document, they are not a party to it, they have no authority to alter or change it's meaning, that is reserved to the States through the Amendment process.


.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, you are the one who is wrong on this.

Feel free to point to my mistake in the verbiage of the contract. Or you could provide the agreement to the alteration, signed by the parties to the contract. Those are the only ways to prove me wrong..

Your errors have been rebutted many times with factual, objective evidence, and you simply go to the equivalent of "nuh uh, what about you."

(1) The OP is correct about how the majority want the Constitution handled in American law.

(2) SCOTUS has made it clear that it will decide how to do that, not the far right.

Yet you can't demonstrate what in the Constitution gives the feds the right to regulate the potted tomato plant on your patio. Other than unelected lawyers says they can. Good job, commie..

That actually was shown to you. You can't show that SCOTUS does not have the authority. Anyone who is talking about commies in America, yet cozies up with Russia has a screw loose.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, you are the one who is wrong on this.

Feel free to point to my mistake in the verbiage of the contract. Or you could provide the agreement to the alteration, signed by the parties to the contract. Those are the only ways to prove me wrong..

Your errors have been rebutted many times with factual, objective evidence, and you simply go to the equivalent of "nuh uh, what about you."

(1) The OP is correct about how the majority want the Constitution handled in American law.

(2) SCOTUS has made it clear that it will decide how to do that, not the far right.

Yet you can't demonstrate what in the Constitution gives the feds the right to regulate the potted tomato plant on your patio. Other than unelected lawyers says they can. Good job, commie.


.

Wow..I wonder if you actually read what you write? We, the people, decide...and we have said, over time, that the Federal govt. can do certain things..you may or may not agree, but our government governs with the permission of the governed. You can, and no doubt will, argue that, yet it is the reality.

This may shock you, but there is more to the philosophical and legal underpinnings of our country..than just the Constitution.

BTW..I find it amusing...this insistence on referring to the SCOTUS as 'unelected lawyers' in a discussion of the very Constitution that established their authority as one of the Branches of our govt..

You're a freaking moron, the court established their own authority and they are granting themselves more power every year. The supreme court was established by the Constitution to hold the government within the limits set forth in the document, not grant the government leave to ignore those limits.

The federal government is a product of the document, they are not a party to it, they have no authority to alter or change it's meaning, that is reserved to the States through the Amendment process..

The statement immediately above is simply false.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The presence in the Constitution of the method to amend it is argument enough that the 'founders' were realists. They understood that they didn't know what the future might hold and that people would change.
Documents are only words. Words are symbols. Symbols are relative. Those who cannot understand that are handicapped.

It also clearly shows how they intended any such changes to be addressed. Not by allowing courts to “interpret” the Constitution away from its original meaning. Not by allowing legislators to pass laws that circumvent that meaning. Not by allowing Presidents to enact executive orders that subvert the Constitution.

If there is a need to change the meaning of the Constitution, then the sole legitimate means to do so is defined within the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The FF are dead. They will remain dead. The Living Document will continue, having escaped the dead slave owners.

 

[Norman]

Liberals hate the Constitution.

The Constitution was written by men who had strong Libertarian leanings. It was designed to provide for individual liberty protection against government tyranny. The men understood that Democracy could produce tyranny against individual liberty just like other forms of government. After all, Democracy is mob rule. That is why we have a Representative Constitutional Republic with a Bill of Rights. Great concept. Very revolutionary for its day.

Liberals hate the concept of individual Liberty. They want collective tyranny. The Constitution is an impediment into making the US a socialist shithole and they don't like it. They would much rather have a Communist Manifesto than a Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately they found a way to circumvent it. By flooding the nation with bunch of third worlders who loath the document they could simple leverage the vote of these people to destroy the document.

The lesson is of course that there is no country without borders. We are well in our way to war and tyranny, the results will be as they have always been.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS rules the way it does because the alternate would be the alt right making decisions, and this place would become a toilet.

 

[OKTexas]

OK, you are the one who is wrong on this.

Feel free to point to my mistake in the verbiage of the contract. Or you could provide the agreement to the alteration, signed by the parties to the contract. Those are the only ways to prove me wrong..

Your errors have been rebutted many times with factual, objective evidence, and you simply go to the equivalent of "nuh uh, what about you."

(1) The OP is correct about how the majority want the Constitution handled in American law.

(2) SCOTUS has made it clear that it will decide how to do that, not the far right.

Yet you can't demonstrate what in the Constitution gives the feds the right to regulate the potted tomato plant on your patio. Other than unelected lawyers says they can. Good job, commie..

That actually was shown to you. You can't show that SCOTUS does not have the authority. Anyone who is talking about commies in America, yet cozies up with Russia has a screw loose.
View attachment 193385

I've already shown they don't have the authority, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants them the authority to ignore or alter what it says. The example I provided, the commerce clause, says the government has the authority to regulated trade among the States, not within the States. The courts have taken it upon themselves to grant the government power to regulate goods that never even enter commerce, like that potted tomato plant on your patio and the tomatoes you produce for your own consumption. Show me where the States agreed to that.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Feel free to point to my mistake in the verbiage of the contract. Or you could provide the agreement to the alteration, signed by the parties to the contract. Those are the only ways to prove me wrong..

Your errors have been rebutted many times with factual, objective evidence, and you simply go to the equivalent of "nuh uh, what about you."

(1) The OP is correct about how the majority want the Constitution handled in American law.

(2) SCOTUS has made it clear that it will decide how to do that, not the far right.

Yet you can't demonstrate what in the Constitution gives the feds the right to regulate the potted tomato plant on your patio. Other than unelected lawyers says they can. Good job, commie.


.

Wow..I wonder if you actually read what you write? We, the people, decide...and we have said, over time, that the Federal govt. can do certain things..you may or may not agree, but our government governs with the permission of the governed. You can, and no doubt will, argue that, yet it is the reality.

This may shock you, but there is more to the philosophical and legal underpinnings of our country..than just the Constitution.

BTW..I find it amusing...this insistence on referring to the SCOTUS as 'unelected lawyers' in a discussion of the very Constitution that established their authority as one of the Branches of our govt..

You're a freaking moron, the court established their own authority and they are granting themselves more power every year. The supreme court was established by the Constitution to hold the government within the limits set forth in the document, not grant the government leave to ignore those limits.

The federal government is a product of the document, they are not a party to it, they have no authority to alter or change it's meaning, that is reserved to the States through the Amendment process..

The statement immediately above is simply false.

And you are simply a liar.


.

 

[koshergrl]

The problem is that the context has changed, and the actual words do not apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state. We have a secure free state, guaranteed by a permanent standing army. This something the Founding Father never anticipated.

Therefore, it would not be entirely specious for the USSC to declare the entire Second Amendment void, because it no longer applies.

Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon.

Horseshit. The context hasn't changed. The actual words absolutely do apply.

That makes you a lying, anti-American, anti-Constitution POS.

 

[there4eyeM]

The presence in the Constitution of the method to amend it is argument enough that the 'founders' were realists. They understood that they didn't know what the future might hold and that people would change.
Documents are only words. Words are symbols. Symbols are relative. Those who cannot understand that are handicapped.

It also clearly shows how they intended any such changes to be addressed. Not by allowing courts to “interpret” the Constitution away from its original meaning. Not by allowing legislators to pass laws that circumvent that meaning. Not by allowing Presidents to enact executive orders that subvert the Constitution.

If there is a need to change the meaning of the Constitution, then the sole legitimate means to do so is defined within the Constitution.

All true. Clarification comes in how and what 'changes' are made. At what point is it clear that the cumbersome process of amending the Constitution is necessary? The Supreme Court has made differing decisions in differing times while working from the same wording of founding documents. Sometimes amendment evolved out of those situations. Sometimes judgements were accepted as sufficient.
In each case, the evolution of language and thought meant inevitable change.

 

[kaz]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

For years now people like myself have been pointing out that the asinine arguments of the anti-gunners that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard, what they see as the “Militia” is wrong. We have been pointing out with links, and articles, that the Militia at the time the Constitution was Ratified, was every single person. Ok, actually it was every able bodied free man. But that is because Women and Slaves were not considered for the right. A belief fixed by Amendments later on.

Well the good news is that people are obviously learning. The bad news, they still don’t want those rules to apply to Supreme Court Decisions. Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working. Those of us who keep trying to educate our fellow citizens should feel gratified that our efforts are showing results. Now, if we could only explain to them that the words used were an effort to capture an ideal, a principle intended to guide us, then we would be better off.

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you. There is no authority of the people in that change. It's a criminal act by the courts

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution

He was right. The Consititution sets out things that may never be taken from someone, things that they may never endure at the hands of their Government. The Government may not abridge your Freedom of Speech, it may not prevent you form worshipping in your own way. Everything in there are things it can’t do.

The Constitution was never intended to limit the citizenry, but to limit the power of the Government. Those are the Negative Rights that Obama talked about. The Government can’t just walk in and search your home, and go through your stuff on a whim. It must have a Warrant.

Every time the Supreme Court rules that there are exceptions, those negative rights get weaker. Those exceptions should be in the most extreme circumstances, never the standard by which we remove even more of your rights.

I feel good that people are learning the truth about the history of the Constitution. Now it is time to start explaining why the Constitution is set up the way it is. If you want a more modern reading of a right, then we have a process for that. It is called an Amendment. Those are very hard to get because they should be. It should be hard to place restrictions on the people. It should be hard to take away their rights. It should be damned near impossible to remove a right from an individual in this nation.

More people are learning what, now it is time to teach them why.

It completely depends how you ask the question.

The Constitution was written and ratified by the States. And there were two methods to modify the Constitution. Constitutional Convention and 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. That was how it was considered the people consented. It wasn't majority vote. Power divided is power checked. For all those governments to ratify it, it had to have broad support of the people. Consent of the governed.

When the Courts change the Constitution, what is the authority behind that change? It isn't the authority of the people because 5 people decided to change the Constitution. Not a super majority of State governments

 

[JakeStarkey]

All the alt right can do here is say "no" and "that is not right," but they have nothing to rest on except dead FFs and originalism.

The world changes. Life changes. Governments change. Article III is what it is. End of story.