Marco Rubio: The Constitution is not a living document.........

[sarahgop]

Rubio will be happy as long as he can import as much cheap labor as his donors demand. his illegals dont give a rats ass about the constitution.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What the hell is a "living document"? Do liberals think the Constitution is "living" in that it can change and evolve with the times or is the word "living" just a romantic notion?

"On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only." - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
Popular Basis of Political Authority: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

 

[Iceweasel]

In the debates last night, one of the comments by Marco Rubio is that the Constitution is not a living document, and must be interpreted literally by what the Founding Fathers wrote.

Marco Rubio: Obama Should Not Appoint Supreme Court Justice - Breitbart

The Best Lines of the GOP Debate

If Marco Rubio is such a smart man about the Constitution, does he understand that the Constitution actually IS a living document? The Founding Fathers made sure of that and understood that eventually, as the country changed, the Constitution should be able to be changed, which is why they allowed for it to be amended as required.

And yeah..............in the spirit of fairness, one link is from Breitbart for the conservatives, and from ABC news for everyone else.

That's a dishonest interpretation of what he said. It can change, be amended, etc. there are ways to do it but the words can't mean what you want them to mean. Laws are written by the legislative branch, not the judicial or executive branch.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In the debates last night, one of the comments by Marco Rubio is that the Constitution is not a living document, and must be interpreted literally by what the Founding Fathers wrote.

Marco Rubio: Obama Should Not Appoint Supreme Court Justice - Breitbart

The Best Lines of the GOP Debate

If Marco Rubio is such a smart man about the Constitution, does he understand that the Constitution actually IS a living document? The Founding Fathers made sure of that and understood that eventually, as the country changed, the Constitution should be able to be changed, which is why they allowed for it to be amended as required.

And yeah..............in the spirit of fairness, one link is from Breitbart for the conservatives, and from ABC news for everyone else.

That's a dishonest interpretation of what he said. It can change, be amended, etc. there are ways to do it but the words can't mean what you want them to mean. Laws are written by the legislative branch, not the judicial or executive branch.

Knowing what the words mean gets very interesting, especially when the people who wrote the bloody thing weren't exactly sure themselves, and they weren't.

 

[Dragonlady]

Americans haven't really modernized their Constitution. It was a viable document 230 years ago, but today it is woefully dated.

When the Founders passed the Second Amendment, there were no multi-shot weapons. Drugs were not an issue. The country was wild and dangerous, and protection from attack was essential. Today, you have dangerous weapons on the street, and you cling to your guns for no reasonable purpose other than "it's your Constitutional right". Dumb.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Americans haven't really modernized their Constitution. It was a viable document 230 years ago, but today it is woefully dated.

When the Founders passed the Second Amendment, there were no multi-shot weapons. Drugs were not an issue. The country was wild and dangerous, and protection from attack was essential. Today, you have dangerous weapons on the street, and you cling to your guns for no reasonable purpose other than "it's your Constitutional right". Dumb.

They never expected it to last anything like this long. They would have thought that very, very stupid, and they'd be right.

 

[OKTexas]

Nope, just an ability to read.

please. you know that people can read the same thing and come to different conclusions.

Contracts, aren't open to interpretation, especially the Constitution

nobody ever has a contract dispute?

Only when someone violates it, or say it doesn't mean what it says, both should lose, unfortunately modern judges sometimes don't rule that way.

You have an overly simplistic view

When are you going to figure it out, it's not supposed to be complicated.

 

[ogibillm]

please. you know that people can read the same thing and come to different conclusions.

Contracts, aren't open to interpretation, especially the Constitution

nobody ever has a contract dispute?

Only when someone violates it, or say it doesn't mean what it says, both should lose, unfortunately modern judges sometimes don't rule that way.

You have an overly simplistic view

When are you going to figure it out, it's not supposed to be complicated.

what does 'cruel and unusual' mean, specifically?

 

[OKTexas]

Contracts, aren't open to interpretation, especially the Constitution

nobody ever has a contract dispute?

Only when someone violates it, or say it doesn't mean what it says, both should lose, unfortunately modern judges sometimes don't rule that way.

You have an overly simplistic view

When are you going to figure it out, it's not supposed to be complicated.

what does 'cruel and unusual' mean, specifically?

Damn can't you come up with something difficult?
Cruel= Unnecessary inflection of pain or physical suffering. It doesn't mean things have to be pain free.
Unusual= Practices not commonly used.

 

[ogibillm]

nobody ever has a contract dispute?

Only when someone violates it, or say it doesn't mean what it says, both should lose, unfortunately modern judges sometimes don't rule that way.

You have an overly simplistic view

When are you going to figure it out, it's not supposed to be complicated.

what does 'cruel and unusual' mean, specifically?

Damn can't you come up with something difficult?
Cruel= Unnecessary inflection of pain or physical suffering. It doesn't mean things have to be pain free.
Unusual= Practices not commonly used.

who decides what is and isn't necessary? you do understand that the constitution was intentionally vague in many areas, right?

 

[Contumacious]

In the debates last night, one of the comments by Marco Rubio is that the Constitution is not a living document, and must be interpreted literally by what the Founding Fathers wrote.

Marco Rubio: Obama Should Not Appoint Supreme Court Justice - Breitbart

The Best Lines of the GOP Debate

If Marco Rubio is such a smart man about the Constitution, does he understand that the Constitution actually IS a living document? The Founding Fathers made sure of that and understood that eventually, as the country changed, the Constitution should be able to be changed, which is why they allowed for it to be amended as required.

And yeah..............in the spirit of fairness, one link is from Breitbart for the conservatives, and from ABC news for everyone else.

THAT IS 1000% CORRECT.


THAT WON'T STOP SOCIALISTS LIKE SKYLAR AND HER ILK FROM COMING HERE TO DISCUSS THEIR SOCIALIST "PENUMBRAS AND EMANATIONS" , IE , SURREPTITIOUSLY AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION (1787) TO ACCOMMODATE THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Only when someone violates it, or say it doesn't mean what it says, both should lose, unfortunately modern judges sometimes don't rule that way.

You have an overly simplistic view

When are you going to figure it out, it's not supposed to be complicated.

what does 'cruel and unusual' mean, specifically?

Damn can't you come up with something difficult?
Cruel= Unnecessary inflection of pain or physical suffering. It doesn't mean things have to be pain free.
Unusual= Practices not commonly used.

who decides what is and isn't necessary? you do understand that the constitution was intentionally vague in many areas, right?

It was the folks that wrote the words, flogging, hanging and execution by firing squad were common practices of the time and considered acceptable. Anything equal to or short of those would be acceptable constitutionally now.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

In the debates last night, one of the comments by Marco Rubio is that the Constitution is not a living document, and must be interpreted literally by what the Founding Fathers wrote.

Marco Rubio: Obama Should Not Appoint Supreme Court Justice - Breitbart

The Best Lines of the GOP Debate

If Marco Rubio is such a smart man about the Constitution, does he understand that the Constitution actually IS a living document? The Founding Fathers made sure of that and understood that eventually, as the country changed, the Constitution should be able to be changed, which is why they allowed for it to be amended as required.

And yeah..............in the spirit of fairness, one link is from Breitbart for the conservatives, and from ABC news for everyone else.

Yeah, it lives through Congress, not judges.

Do try and keep up.

 

[OKTexas]

In the debates last night, one of the comments by Marco Rubio is that the Constitution is not a living document, and must be interpreted literally by what the Founding Fathers wrote.

Marco Rubio: Obama Should Not Appoint Supreme Court Justice - Breitbart

The Best Lines of the GOP Debate

If Marco Rubio is such a smart man about the Constitution, does he understand that the Constitution actually IS a living document? The Founding Fathers made sure of that and understood that eventually, as the country changed, the Constitution should be able to be changed, which is why they allowed for it to be amended as required.

And yeah..............in the spirit of fairness, one link is from Breitbart for the conservatives, and from ABC news for everyone else.

Yeah, it lives through Congress, not judges.

Do try and keep up.

Wrong, only the States can change it. The Constitution is a contract for and between the States, it created the federal government, the feds are not a party to it.

 

[Tom Horn]

Rubio stated that the Constitution isn't a living document.

However, based on what the founders wrote, it clearly is.

The reference to "dead" is that the Constitution clearly states it's purpose and intentions and that isn't subject to the whims of the times. If it were, the 2nd Amendment would have been long gone thanks to the gun-grabbers. Amendments were forecast by the Founders to further explain and put boundaries on what the government could do to the people.

 

[ogibillm]

Rubio stated that the Constitution isn't a living document.

However, based on what the founders wrote, it clearly is.

The reference to "dead" is that the Constitution clearly states it's purpose and intentions and that isn't subject to the whims of the times. If it were, the 2nd Amendment would have been long gone thanks to the gun-grabbers. Amendments were forecast by the Founders to further explain and put boundaries on what the government could do to the people.

if it were 'dead' the 2nd amendment would still be considered a militia right, not an individual right.

 

[candycorn]

What the hell is a "living document"? Do liberals think the Constitution is "living" in that it can change and evolve with the times or is the word "living" just a romantic notion?

They are called Amendments....it can and has been changed.

 

[candycorn]

There is a part that says the President nominates people to sit on the courts and the Senate confirms them. I guess that part is "dead" seeing as how the Senate has decided it won't give the President's nominee her/his constitutionally mandated hearing...

 

[Tom Horn]

if it were 'dead' the 2nd amendment would still be considered a militia right, not an individual right.

Malarkey....In Colonial times, the militias were a citizen force and kept their weapons so a raid on an arms depot couldn't neutralize them.

 

[Contumacious]

Rubio stated that the Constitution isn't a living document.

However, based on what the founders wrote, it clearly is.

The reference to "dead" is that the Constitution clearly states it's purpose and intentions and that isn't subject to the whims of the times. If it were, the 2nd Amendment would have been long gone thanks to the gun-grabbers. Amendments were forecast by the Founders to further explain and put boundaries on what the government could do to the people.

if it were 'dead' the 2nd amendment would still be considered a militia right, not an individual right.

PLEASE NOTE THAT HELLER DID NOT DECLARE THAT BEARING ARMS IS A RIGHT. IT DECLARE THAT IT IS A "PRIVILEGE" WHICH MAY BE REGULATED BY < AMONGST OTHERS, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.