We DO NOT Have a Living Constitution

[JakeStarkey]

What the FF originally intended is a guide to the federal judiciary: nothing more.

 

[Meister]

The United States Constitution is, indeed, a "living, breathing document" - subject to evolved interpretation as the nature and needs of the Republic change.

And, of course, the Supreme Court is the Ultimate Authority for its interpretation.

If, in the future, the Court overturns Roe v Wade or other LibProg Sacred Cows, then, that too, is an evolving interpretation based upon the nature and needs of the Republic.

The Founding Fathers did not intend the Constitution to be a Perpetual Straight-Jacket.

We are now embarking upon an era in which the Court will serve up decisions more in line with Conservative rather than Liberal values.

Checks and balances, on an ongoing basis.

LibProgs go too far, then Conservatives checkmate them for a while.

Eventually, we'll rinse-and-repeat the entire cycle, over a generation or two or three.

If the Constitution is whatever nine lawyers say it is, then it is nothing more than a guide. And yes, the founders did intend the Constitution to be a straight jacket on the federal government. The founders did everything they could to limit the power of the federal government to the specific tasks outlined in the document. The Supreme Court has continually loosened the bonds and allowed the federal government to insert itself in just about every part of our lives.

Well stated

 

[rightwinger]

The words of the United States Constitution are not to be reworked or legislatively overturned by activists liberals judges who feel the Constitution is a living document. Strict constructionist view is the correct one.
Loose Construction versus Strict Construction | Conservatism In The United States | United States Government

Tell us about those well regulated militias

National Guard and private citizens who are armed. Every authoritarian or totalitarian governments that I know of all have one thing in common...no private gun ownership.

National guard is well regulated

Private citizens are not. Our founders said NOTHING about arming private citizens, a strict constitutionalist must support that private ownership is not covered

Hysterically funny, that.

The Constitution disagrees with you, and the SCOTUS also, having mostly reiterated it.

More will be recovered in the future, and many decisions are forthcoming with which you will disagree.

Tough titty.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.......

 

[EGR one]

My interpretation of activist, a person who can not read.

My interpretation of the constitution... who gives a fuck? Read what it says, it's not meant to be interpreted.

Without the context of the Social Fabric that it is meant to govern, the Constitution isn't worth the parchment it's written on.

Viewed within the context of the Social Fabric that it is meant to govern, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of that Social Fabric.

Interpretation is the process by which both the Spirit and the Letter of The Law are applied to the evolving Social Fabric that the Constitution is intended to serve.

Constructionist thinking is merely one opinion on the extent to which Interpretation should be applied; minimalism, not a complete rejection of the concept.

If there was no need for Interpretation, there would be no need for a Supreme Court, to deal with Constitutional issues on an ongoing basis.

The Constitution is the Ultimate Expression of the Will of the People, and the Will of the People changes from time to time, requiring adjustments in Interpretation.

The Founding Fathers crafted a Constitution so that the Social Fabric would willingly participate in the life of the Republic, not to lock them into a narrow framework.

The Constitution is subject to constant and ongoing Interpretation throughout the entire history of the Republic that it regulates.

Only fools and dullards and simpletons believe otherwise.

The US Constitution is a contract between the people of the United States and the federal government. Only a fool, or a dullard, would suggest that one party to the contract has the right to alter that contract at will.

 

[rightwinger]

Court decisions change its interpretation

At times, in error. So much for settled law.

That makes no sense. Yes, court cases do change interpretations. Plessy and Brown are the most obvious. Marbury is another.

Marbury v Madison is the mistake that set the course for where we find ourselves today.

You may think so, but that opinion has no affect on modern constitutional law.

"Modern constitutional law" is about to change before your eyes. Better get some Visine.

Momentary swing to the right

 

[EGR one]

The words of the United States Constitution are not to be reworked or legislatively overturned by activists liberals judges who feel the Constitution is a living document. Strict constructionist view is the correct one.
Loose Construction versus Strict Construction | Conservatism In The United States | United States Government

Tell us about those well regulated militias

National Guard and private citizens who are armed. Every authoritarian or totalitarian governments that I know of all have one thing in common...no private gun ownership.

National guard is well regulated

Private citizens are not. Our founders said NOTHING about arming private citizens, a strict constitutionalist must support that private ownership is not covered

Hysterically funny, that.

The Constitution disagrees with you, and the SCOTUS also, having mostly reiterated it.

More will be recovered in the future, and many decisions are forthcoming with which you will disagree.

Tough titty.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.......

The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, SHALL not be infringed.

 

[Meister]

The words of the United States Constitution are not to be reworked or legislatively overturned by activists liberals judges who feel the Constitution is a living document. Strict constructionist view is the correct one.
Loose Construction versus Strict Construction | Conservatism In The United States | United States Government

Tell us about those well regulated militias

National Guard and private citizens who are armed. Every authoritarian or totalitarian governments that I know of all have one thing in common...no private gun ownership.

National guard is well regulated

Private citizens are not. Our founders said NOTHING about arming private citizens, a strict constitutionalist must support that private ownership is not covered

Hysterically funny, that.

The Constitution disagrees with you, and the SCOTUS also, having mostly reiterated it.

More will be recovered in the future, and many decisions are forthcoming with which you will disagree.

Tough titty.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.......

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Did you notice it didn't say the rights of the military/militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

 

[EGR one]

The Constitution has been a living document for over 200 years

Hard to imagine we still have those wanting to live like it is 1776

What part of the Constitution does now, or in the past, force us to live in 1776? And, if you have so much trust in nine lawyers, why do we need to spend billions on a congress?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The United States Constitution is, indeed, a "living, breathing document" - subject to evolved interpretation as the nature and needs of the Republic change.

And, of course, the Supreme Court is the Ultimate Authority for its interpretation.

If, in the future, the Court overturns Roe v Wade or other LibProg Sacred Cows, then, that too, is an evolving interpretation based upon the nature and needs of the Republic.

The Founding Fathers did not intend the Constitution to be a Perpetual Straight-Jacket.

We are now embarking upon an era in which the Court will serve up decisions more in line with Conservative rather than Liberal values.

Checks and balances, on an ongoing basis.

LibProgs go too far, then Conservatives checkmate them for a while.

Eventually, we'll rinse-and-repeat the entire cycle, over a generation or two or three.

If the Constitution is whatever nine lawyers say it is, then it is nothing more than a guide. And yes, the founders did intend the Constitution to be a straight jacket on the federal government. The founders did everything they could to limit the power of the federal government to the specific tasks outlined in the document. The Supreme Court has continually loosened the bonds and allowed the federal government to insert itself in just about every part of our lives.

Law must be ruthlessly enforced to be effective, even within the halls of the Supreme Court. Marbury v Madison is a barrier to that, and while not insurmountable, it definitely dropped a late turd into the Framers' punchbowl.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The words of the United States Constitution are not to be reworked or legislatively overturned by activists liberals judges who feel the Constitution is a living document. Strict constructionist view is the correct one.
Loose Construction versus Strict Construction | Conservatism In The United States | United States Government

Tell us about those well regulated militias

National Guard and private citizens who are armed. Every authoritarian or totalitarian governments that I know of all have one thing in common...no private gun ownership.

National guard is well regulated

Private citizens are not. Our founders said NOTHING about arming private citizens, a strict constitutionalist must support that private ownership is not covered

Hysterically funny, that.

The Constitution disagrees with you, and the SCOTUS also, having mostly reiterated it.

More will be recovered in the future, and many decisions are forthcoming with which you will disagree.

Tough titty.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.......

Babble all you like. You are beaten.

 

[EGR one]

The words of the United States Constitution are not to be reworked or legislatively overturned by activists liberals judges who feel the Constitution is a living document. Strict constructionist view is the correct one.
Loose Construction versus Strict Construction | Conservatism In The United States | United States Government

Tell us about those well regulated militias

National Guard and private citizens who are armed. Every authoritarian or totalitarian governments that I know of all have one thing in common...no private gun ownership.

National guard is well regulated

Private citizens are not. Our founders said NOTHING about arming private citizens, a strict constitutionalist must support that private ownership is not covered

If you read the Heller decision, you will see that your argument was clearly in error. The people has always meant the general population, and it is the people who have the right to keep and bear arms. It is ludicrous to think that arming a military unit would need to be specified in the Constitution.

 

[AsherN]

Make you a deal. I'm OK to stop interpreting the Constitution to fit the times if you're OK to stop telling Muslims to interpret the Quran to fit modern times.

 

[grainbely]

The words of the United States Constitution are not to be reworked or legislatively overturned by activists liberals judges who feel the Constitution is a living document. Strict constructionist view is the correct one.
Loose Construction versus Strict Construction | Conservatism In The United States | United States Government

You should have told the late Scalia that when he decided that incorporations have special rights better than an individual citizen. Hypocrites. Constitutionalism is little more than convenient cover for the conservative agenda. When its inconvenient or in the way, its abandoned.

 

[grainbely]

It is "living" only in the sense that it can be altered solely by the process it mandates. Any other alteration is invalid.

It's living in that the right can decide what intent was after the fact by digging up obscure documents and using it to defend or implement the conservative agenda which not coincidentally overlaps nicely with regressed pre civil and workers rights america.

 

[rightwinger]

Tell us about those well regulated militias

National Guard and private citizens who are armed. Every authoritarian or totalitarian governments that I know of all have one thing in common...no private gun ownership.

National guard is well regulated

Private citizens are not. Our founders said NOTHING about arming private citizens, a strict constitutionalist must support that private ownership is not covered

Hysterically funny, that.

The Constitution disagrees with you, and the SCOTUS also, having mostly reiterated it.

More will be recovered in the future, and many decisions are forthcoming with which you will disagree.

Tough titty.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.......

The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, SHALL not be infringed.

Then why the disclaimer before it?

First Amendment comes right out........Congress shall pass no laws
Why not just add...”infringing on the right to bear arms” to the first

They felt it necessary to qualify the second amendment

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The words of the United States Constitution are not to be reworked or legislatively overturned by activists liberals judges who feel the Constitution is a living document. Strict constructionist view is the correct one.
Loose Construction versus Strict Construction | Conservatism In The United States | United States Government

You should have told the late Scalia that when he decided that incorporations have special rights better than an individual citizen.

He didn't, and a corporation is nothing more than a group of individuals exercising their rights in a corporate manner. Essentially, no different than a Leftist protest march.

Constitutionalism is little more than convenient cover for the conservative agenda.

Your knowledge is quite thin. The Constitution was written by those steeped in classical liberalism, not to be confused with the modern-day Bizarro version.

 

[rightwinger]

The words of the United States Constitution are not to be reworked or legislatively overturned by activists liberals judges who feel the Constitution is a living document. Strict constructionist view is the correct one.
Loose Construction versus Strict Construction | Conservatism In The United States | United States Government

Tell us about those well regulated militias

National Guard and private citizens who are armed. Every authoritarian or totalitarian governments that I know of all have one thing in common...no private gun ownership.

National guard is well regulated

Private citizens are not. Our founders said NOTHING about arming private citizens, a strict constitutionalist must support that private ownership is not covered

If you read the Heller decision, you will see that your argument was clearly in error. The people has always meant the general population, and it is the people who have the right to keep and bear arms. It is ludicrous to think that arming a military unit would need to be specified in the Constitution.

Wait a minute?

You mean a “court” has to interpret the Constitution?
That would make it a living document

 

[rightwinger]

Make you a deal. I'm OK to stop interpreting the Constitution to fit the times if you're OK to stop telling Muslims to interpret the Quran to fit modern times.

Bible too?

 

[Indeependent]

If I know your SSN, can I shout it out on main street to anyone who will listen? Or what if you have AIDS...can I tell people that you have this disease?

You want someone’s SSN?
It’s not all that difficult to get which is why health professionals are now assigned EINs.

 

[Indeependent]

The words of the United States Constitution are not to be reworked or legislatively overturned by activists liberals judges who feel the Constitution is a living document. Strict constructionist view is the correct one.
Loose Construction versus Strict Construction | Conservatism In The United States | United States Government

Tell us about those well regulated militias

National Guard and private citizens who are armed. Every authoritarian or totalitarian governments that I know of all have one thing in common...no private gun ownership.

National guard is well regulated

Private citizens are not. Our founders said NOTHING about arming private citizens, a strict constitutionalist must support that private ownership is not covered

If you read the Heller decision, you will see that your argument was clearly in error. The people has always meant the general population, and it is the people who have the right to keep and bear arms. It is ludicrous to think that arming a military unit would need to be specified in the Constitution.

Wait a minute?

You mean a “court” has to interpret the Constitution?
That would make it a living document

Not living on LSD.