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

[2aguy]

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....you don't understand....the Founders put in the Amendment process to change the Constitution......they didn't want judges just making arbitrary decisions based on current whims.........

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...they didn't want judges just making arbitrary decisions based on current whims.........

Which judges here do not do.

 

[2aguy]

...they didn't want judges just making arbitrary decisions based on current whims.........

Which judges here do not do.

Every leftist judge does exactly that.....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...they didn't want judges just making arbitrary decisions based on current whims.........

Which judges here do not do.

Every leftist judge does exactly that.....

Save it, that is total BS and it bores me since that is nothing like the truth.

 

[2aguy]

...they didn't want judges just making arbitrary decisions based on current whims.........

Which judges here do not do.

Every leftist judge does exactly that.....

Save it, that is total BS and it bores me since that is nothing like the truth.

Yes....we know...the truth, facts and reality bore you.......just like they do for every lefty....

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

The dumb was all yours. I have guns to kill people that break into my house or try to hurt me or family. And to fight government if it ever becomes a tyranny, like the founders intended. How are you that clueless?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

The Puckle gun (also known as the Defence gun) was a primitive crew-served, manually-operated flintlock revolver patented in 1718* by James Puckle (1667–1724) a British inventor, lawyer and writer. It was one of the earliest weapons to be referred to as a "machine gun", being called such in a 1722 shipping manifest.​

* Note that this is nearly three quarters of a century before the Second Amendment was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights. The authors of the Second Amendment certainly knew that the arms that were in common use at the time did not represent the end of the technological development of such things, that arms already existed that were significantly more sophisticated,and they certainly would have assumed that arms technology would advance well beyond anything that was known to them at the time.

On a similar note, the First Amendment, in protecting the expression of controversial beliefs and opinions, mentioned only two means by which such opinions were commonly expressed in public at that time. Do you hold that because no electronic technology then existed or could be anticipated, that computers as we know them were then unimaginable, and that the Internet was well beyond anything they would have imagined, that your right to express yourself on this Internet-based forum is not protected by the First Amendment. Does the First Amendment only protect your right to expression if you do so by standing on a soapbox in the public square and giving a speech, or by publishing leaflets with a primitive hand-cranked printing press?

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.

Our government is farther out of control than the authors of the Constitution were likely to have anticipated. The need for the people to retain and exercise our right to keep and bear arms is greater than it has ever been. Why do you think it is that our corrupt public servants are so desperate to undermine and destroy this right? What are they up to, that they should be so frightened of us, their rightful masters, being in possession of arms?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

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

A living document means that the contents are open to interpretation. That is not true.

if that was the case we would have no reason or need for a supreme court

It's the responsibility of the court to apply the Constitution and laws, nothing more, nothing less.

right. and that requires interpretation

It does not require making up laws that cannot be cited in the Constitution as federal responsibilities.

 

[ogibillm]

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

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

A living document means that the contents are open to interpretation. That is not true.

if that was the case we would have no reason or need for a supreme court

It's the responsibility of the court to apply the Constitution and laws, nothing more, nothing less.

right. and that requires interpretation

It does not require making up laws that cannot be cited in the Constitution as federal responsibilities.

wonderful. I'm sure you have an example in mind?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

I am compelled to admit that the Eight Amendment is an exception to my position, regarding the Constitution as a whole, that it is mostly very clear and unambiguous and in no need of “interpretation” for any purpose other than to evade its clear meaning by those who do not wish to see it obeyed and upheld.

“Cruel and unusual” indeed. It really isn't very clear where that draws the line. I'm of the opinion, but I must admit that there is reasonable basis to disagree, that what it is intended to mean is that the punishment should not be out of proportion to the crime. I think that in modern use, this phrase has been taken to a rather ridiculous extreme; an obvious result of which is the great concern regarding methods of execution that the convict be made to suffer as little as possible in the process. I see nothing at all wrong with a murderer being made to suffer, as he is put to death, to a degree comparable to that which he caused his victim to suffer; and I do not think that causing such would be at all in violation of the intent behind the Eighth Amendment. I see nothing wrong with a convict being tortured, if his crime involved torturing an innocent. I see nothing wrong with treating a convicted criminal with as much cruelty as he treated his victims; and I do not think that those who wrote the Eighth Amendment would have disagreed with me on this point

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

The Second Amendment does not say anything about any “right of the militia”. It explicitly identifies the right which if affirms as “…the right of the people…”.

 

[ogibillm]

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

The Second Amendment does not say anything about any “right of the militia”. It explicitly identifies the right which if affirms as “…the right of the people…”.

until heller it was not considered an individual right

scalia's activism changed that

 

[whitehall]

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?

Refusing to allow interpretations or extensions to an old document is silly.

The Constitution allows revisions and extensions under very limited circumstances. It's not silly nor is it "living". The problem is when the left decides to revise the Constitution with superior court or even Supreme Court decisions based on bias rather than Constitutional law.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

The Second Amendment does not say anything about any “right of the militia”. It explicitly identifies the right which if affirms as “…the right of the people…”.

until heller it was not considered an individual right

scalia's activism changed that

It was written as an individual right in the original words. “…the right of the people…”. There is no honest way to twist that into meaning anything than an individual right belonging to each and every individual free American. Those who try to claim that it means or was ever intended to mean otherwise are engaging in willful dishonesty.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Exactly, and just because people are willing to commit murder, doesn't mean they won't abide by the constitution if we simply write in there "you can't have deadly weapons".

It's funny, I was going to ask you what part of the constitution you consider woefully dated, but thankfully you disqualified your own opinion by suggesting completely applicable rights to modern society, is what you want to eliminate.

Maybe we should get rid of the freedom of speech, since I doubt they knew some people would use it to promote violence in America. Maybe we should get rid of freedom of the press, since there are media outlets completely against you taking away the second amendment just because you think it's "dated".

Maybe we should just do away with all rights. We really could have a Utopian society, if we just got rid of all these pesky rights people keep claiming.

The Soviets had the right idea. We just need to give it a chance.

........ ugh.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Do you have a "living breathing" lease or mortgage?

The Constitution has an amendment process, one that's been corrupted and destroyed by Progs

 

[ogibillm]

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

The Second Amendment does not say anything about any “right of the militia”. It explicitly identifies the right which if affirms as “…the right of the people…”.

until heller it was not considered an individual right

scalia's activism changed that

It was written as an individual right in the original words. “…the right of the people…”. There is no honest way to twist that into meaning anything than an individual right belonging to each and every individual free American. Those who try to claim that it means or was ever intended to mean otherwise are engaging in willful dishonesty.

so you are okay with activism so long as it suits your ideology

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

Refusing to allow interpretations or extensions to an old document is silly.

Did you know the Constitution has a built in Amendment process?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

The Second Amendment does not say anything about any “right of the militia”. It explicitly identifies the right which if affirms as “…the right of the people…”.

until heller it was not considered an individual right

scalia's activism changed that

Heller reaffirmed that it's an individual right

Progressives are just plain fucking Constitutional morons

 

[ogibillm]

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

The Second Amendment does not say anything about any “right of the militia”. It explicitly identifies the right which if affirms as “…the right of the people…”.

until heller it was not considered an individual right

scalia's activism changed that

Heller reaffirmed that it's an individual right

Progressives are just plain fucking Constitutional morons

heller changed how the 2nd amendment was interpreted. it was what many of you would call judicial activism, or at least you would if you didn't like the outcome