We DO NOT Have a Living Constitution

[Meister]

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 beat arms” to the first

They felt it necessary to qualify the second amendment

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

Interpret, not legislate to change the Constitution. It will take some critical thinking to understand the difference.
Some common sense always helps, too.

 

[rightwinger]

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 beat arms” to the first

They felt it necessary to qualify the second amendment

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

Interpret, not legislate to change the Constitution. It will take some critical thinking to understand the difference.
Some common sense always helps, too.

Give an example

 

[Meister]

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 beat arms” to the first

They felt it necessary to qualify the second amendment

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

Interpret, not legislate to change the Constitution. It will take some critical thinking to understand the difference.
Some common sense always helps, too.

Give an example

be more specific? example of what?

 

[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.

Wait a minute?

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

Interpret means to explain the meaning of the written word, not alter that meaning to reach the results they wish to find.
That is the difference between the rule of law and the rule of men.

 

[rightwinger]

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 beat arms” to the first

They felt it necessary to qualify the second amendment

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

Interpret, not legislate to change the Constitution. It will take some critical thinking to understand the difference.
Some common sense always helps, too.

Give an example

be more specific? example of what?

Where courts have changed what is in the Constitution

 

[EGR one]

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 beat arms” to the first

They felt it necessary to qualify the second amendment

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

Interpret, not legislate to change the Constitution. It will take some critical thinking to understand the difference.
Some common sense always helps, too.

Give an example

There is absolutely nothing in the U.S. Constitution that supports "Separation of Church and State". Congress shall make no law means what it says. Congress is restricted from endorsing a religion. Those all wise lawyers of the supreme court determined that to mean the state must be separate from religion.

 

[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

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

Interpret means to explain the meaning of the written word, not alter that meaning to reach the results they wish to find.
That is the difference between the rule of law and the rule of men.

Show where it has been altered

Expanding the scope is not altering

 

[Meister]

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 beat arms” to the first

They felt it necessary to qualify the second amendment

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

Interpret, not legislate to change the Constitution. It will take some critical thinking to understand the difference.
Some common sense always helps, too.

Give an example

be more specific? example of what?

Where courts have changed what is in the Constitution

Well, I gave this example earlier but the separation of church and state is a prime example.
This was where critical thinking and common sense would have helped the judges understand the intent of our FF's

 

[Meister]

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

Interpret means to explain the meaning of the written word, not alter that meaning to reach the results they wish to find.
That is the difference between the rule of law and the rule of men.

Show where it has been altered

Expanding the scope is not altering

Expanding the scope in this instance was legislating from the bench creating a law

 

[g5000]

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

Of course the Constitution is a living document, you ninny. We've made 27 pen-and-ink changes to it since its ratification.

 

[rightwinger]

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 beat arms” to the first

They felt it necessary to qualify the second amendment

Wait a minute?

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

Interpret, not legislate to change the Constitution. It will take some critical thinking to understand the difference.
Some common sense always helps, too.

Give an example

be more specific? example of what?

Where courts have changed what is in the Constitution

Well, I gave this example earlier but the separation of church and state is a prime example.
This was where critical thinking and common sense would have helped the judges understand the intent of our FF's

Separation of church and state is a cornerstone

 

[rightwinger]

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

Interpret means to explain the meaning of the written word, not alter that meaning to reach the results they wish to find.
That is the difference between the rule of law and the rule of men.

Show where it has been altered

Expanding the scope is not altering

Expanding the scope in this instance was legislating from the bench creating a law

Got an example and why it violates the constitution?

 

[g5000]

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 beat arms” to the first

They felt it necessary to qualify the second amendment

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

Interpret, not legislate to change the Constitution. It will take some critical thinking to understand the difference.
Some common sense always helps, too.

Give an example

There is absolutely nothing in the U.S. Constitution that supports "Separation of Church and State". Congress shall make no law means what it says. Congress is restricted from endorsing a religion. Those all wise lawyers of the supreme court determined that to mean the state must be separate from religion.

Jefferson is the one who summarized the First Amendment as "building a wall of separation between Church & State".

Jefferson knows better than you.

I thought Trumpies liked walls.

 

[g5000]

Our Founders knew something which today's pseudocons have forgotten. When you invite your religion into government, you are inviting government into your religion.

You are inviting the devil into your home.

And boy do we see the consequences of that mistake everywhere. If your eyes are open.

 

[EGR one]

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 beat arms” to the first

They felt it necessary to qualify the second amendment

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

Interpret, not legislate to change the Constitution. It will take some critical thinking to understand the difference.
Some common sense always helps, too.

Give an example

There is absolutely nothing in the U.S. Constitution that supports "Separation of Church and State". Congress shall make no law means what it says. Congress is restricted from endorsing a religion. Those all wise lawyers of the supreme court determined that to mean the state must be separate from religion.

Jefferson is the one who summarized the First Amendment as "building a wall of separation between Church & State".

Jefferson knows better than you.

I thought Trumpies liked walls.

Jefferson's words referred to the Virginia Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution, which Jefferson had nothing to do with writing or approving.

 

[g5000]

Every pen-and-ink change we have made to the Constitution has EXPANDED human rights, save one. But we scratched that one exception out a few years later.

A great deal of Supreme Court decisions have defined the boundaries of those rights, and the limits of government. There have been some really, really good decisions which have rapped government on the knuckles. Some court majorities have expanded the powers of government, and I am not very happy about that.

 

[g5000]

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 beat arms” to the first

They felt it necessary to qualify the second amendment

Wait a minute?

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

Interpret, not legislate to change the Constitution. It will take some critical thinking to understand the difference.
Some common sense always helps, too.

Give an example

There is absolutely nothing in the U.S. Constitution that supports "Separation of Church and State". Congress shall make no law means what it says. Congress is restricted from endorsing a religion. Those all wise lawyers of the supreme court determined that to mean the state must be separate from religion.

Jefferson is the one who summarized the First Amendment as "building a wall of separation between Church & State".

Jefferson knows better than you.

I thought Trumpies liked walls.

Jefferson's words referred to the Virginia Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution, which Jefferson had nothing to do with writing or approving.

Nope. Incorrect.

The Danbury Baptist Association was from Connecticut, and they were writing to PRESIDENT Jefferson. Their letters back and forth were referring to the US Constitution.

Also, it was Jefferson who proposed the Bill of Rights of which the First Amendment is part.

 

[there4eyeM]

Has the English language changed in two hundred plus years? Has society, philosophy, technology? For that matter, has punctuation changed? Who would use commas today as they were used in the Constitution?

 

[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.

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.

Corporations have limited liability and other special rules, so it's not just a collection of individuals because they don't take ultimate responsibility for their businesses actions. They get premium rights thanks to activist conservative judges.

 

[skews13]

Court decisions change its interpretation

So do amendments.