CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 146,713
- 69,864
Dems already set the bar so low, this is not an issue
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Dems already set the bar so low, this is not an issue
The only major candidate who will defend the Constitution is Gary Johnson.
The only major candidate who will defend the Constitution is Gary Johnson.
Frankly, I don't think the Constitution needs "defending" because:
Changed and interpreted however and to whatever extent it happen, the Constitution will remain unassailable as exactly what it is, our supreme document of law. Nobody is trying to replace it as such.
- It's not going anywhere. We are nowhere near a point whereby, as a nation, we are of a mind to cast it off as the document that informs how our nation works.
- It's designed and meant to be modified. IIRC, it has been modified some 27 times, one such modification taking over 200 years to effect.
The only major candidate who will defend the Constitution is Gary Johnson.
Frankly, I don't think the Constitution needs "defending" because:
Changed and interpreted however and to whatever extent it happen, the Constitution will remain unassailable as exactly what it is, our supreme document of law. Nobody is trying to replace it as such.
- It's not going anywhere. We are nowhere near a point whereby, as a nation, we are of a mind to cast it off as the document that informs how our nation works.
- It's designed and meant to be modified. IIRC, it has been modified some 27 times, one such modification taking over 200 years to effect.
Your equivocation speaks otherwise. A document that can be "changed and interpreted however and to whatever extent" isn't binding and has no substance. When I say defend the Constitution, I mean defending it from those who would erode its protections via re-interpretation and dismissal. Congress is failing us by doing that. And the Court is failing us by accommodating them.
The only major candidate who will defend the Constitution is Gary Johnson.
Frankly, I don't think the Constitution needs "defending" because:
Changed and interpreted however and to whatever extent it happen, the Constitution will remain unassailable as exactly what it is, our supreme document of law. Nobody is trying to replace it as such.
- It's not going anywhere. We are nowhere near a point whereby, as a nation, we are of a mind to cast it off as the document that informs how our nation works.
- It's designed and meant to be modified. IIRC, it has been modified some 27 times, one such modification taking over 200 years to effect.
Your equivocation speaks otherwise. A document that can be "changed and interpreted however and to whatever extent" isn't binding and has no substance. When I say defend the Constitution, I mean defending it from those who would erode its protections via re-interpretation and dismissal. Congress is failing us by doing that. And the Court is failing us by accommodating them.
What equivocation have you specifically in mind?
You're equivocating the fact that the Constitution includes provisions for its modification (the amendment process) with the idea that it's subject to reinterpretation.
...
Hopefully that's unequivocal enough for you to understand now....
Frankly, I don't think the Constitution needs "defending" because:
Changed and interpreted however and to whatever extent it happen, the Constitution will remain unassailable as exactly what it is, our supreme document of law. Nobody is trying to replace it as such.
- It's not going anywhere. We are nowhere near a point whereby, as a nation, we are of a mind to cast it off as the document that informs how our nation works.
- It's designed and meant to be modified. IIRC, it has been modified some 27 times, one such modification taking over 200 years to effect.
...
Hopefully that's unequivocal enough for you to understand now....
If you're making the 'living document' argument, and it sounds like you are, you are equivocating exactly as I described. You dismissed the need to defend the Constitution based on the fact that the it's amendable:
Frankly, I don't think the Constitution needs "defending" because:
Changed and interpreted however and to whatever extent it happen, the Constitution will remain unassailable as exactly what it is, our supreme document of law. Nobody is trying to replace it as such.
- It's not going anywhere. We are nowhere near a point whereby, as a nation, we are of a mind to cast it off as the document that informs how our nation works.
- It's designed and meant to be modified. IIRC, it has been modified some 27 times, one such modification taking over 200 years to effect.
That's a specious argument and completely ignores that fact that government can pass laws that are unconstitutional and the Court can re-interpret the Constitution to suit the ambitions of powerful leaders. We do, most emphatically, need to defend against that sort of change.
Okay...fine...It's clear all you're arguing for is the continuance of policy and interpretations that suit you and the rejection of those that don't suit you.
I'm arguing for why we need a president who will defend the Constitution.You're not actually aiming to engage on a discussion of jurisprudential theory.
that's fine. I now understand the nature of what you want to discuss. It's just not the same nature of conversation I care to have. That'd fine. Have a good day.
It is? Since I haven't advocated for any specific policies, it's hard to see how you come to that conclusion.