We DO NOT Have a Living Constitution

[Billy_Kinetta]

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

It can be. A decision that grants the federal government additional authority not specifically mandated by the Constitution is an alteration, and invalid, particularly if it involves a diminishment of state authority.

Such additional authority can only be legally granted via the amendment process.

 

[g5000]

On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country. My desire to discover the causes of this phenomenon increased from day to day. In order to satisfy it I questioned the members of all the different sects; I sought especially the society of the clergy, who are the depositaries of the different creeds and are especially interested in their duration. As a member of the Roman Catholic Church, I was more particularly brought into contact with several of its priests, with whom I became intimately acquainted. To each of these men I expressed my astonishment and explained my doubts. I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 17

 

[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

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

Via the amendment process, not legislative or judicial.

 

[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.

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.

So you are proffering the notion that individuals lose their rights by joining a corporation?

Do tell.

 

[g5000]

Here is what modern day pseudocons have forgotten which our early Americans understood very well:


The unbelievers of Europe attack the Christians as their political opponents rather than as their religious adversaries; they hate the Christian religion as the opinion of a party much more than as an error of belief; and they reject the clergy less because they are the representatives of the Deity than because they are the allies of government.

In Europe, Christianity has been intimately united to the powers of the earth. Those powers are now in decay, and it is, as it were, buried under their ruins. The living body of religion has been bound down to the dead corpse of superannuated polity; cut but the bonds that restrain it, and it will rise once more. I do not know what could restore the Christian church of Europe to the energy of its earlier days; that power belongs to God alone; but it may be for human policy to leave to faith the full exercise of the strength which it still retains.

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 17

 

[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.

Via the amendment process, not legislative or judicial.

The judiciary is there to protect the rights in our Constitution. So if the legislature or the President decided to outlaw midget porn, our only recourse is to challenge that law in court in order to preserve our First Amendment rights.

Without the courts, you'd be fucked.

"Those damned activist judges made midget porn legal!"

 

[g5000]

When you agree with a Supreme Court decision, our judges are wise sages.

When you disagree with a Supreme Court decision, our judges are activist assholes legislating from the bench.

 

[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

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.

"Limited liability" is a financial term. That protection does not extend to criminality.

 

[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.

"Limited liability" is a financial term. That protection does not extend to criminality.

Shareholders wouldn't face jail time for criminal activity in the corporation though. That would be ultimately the CEO and CFO it it went to the top.

 

[Bush92]

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.

Constitution has nothing to do with “social fabric.” It’s to protect people from an abusive government.

 

[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

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.

"Limited liability" is a financial term. That protection does not extend to criminality.

Shareholders wouldn't face jail time for criminal activity in the corporation though. That would be ultimately the CEO and CFO it it went to the top.

A shareholder is not an employee of the corporation.

 

[Meister]

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

It's how you interpret that. Having the church not dictate policy to the government WAS the intent of the FF's.

 

[Bush92]

Court decisions change its interpretation

Wrong answer since the Warren Court.

The court has made many, many decisions since Warren

Your point is?

 

[Bush92]

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

The only way our Constitution could be considered a "living document" is if you consider the amendment process.
Fuck activists and their interpretations. The Constitution is clear.

If we needed an amendment every time the Constitution needed an interpretation, the document would be 5000 pages long

Not. Statutory law has nothing to with amendment process. It’s how liberal jurist twist and interpret statutory law that is the problem.

 

[Meister]

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?

RW, I'm not going to play this 'jump' through the hoops' game you seem to want to play.
Like I said, it takes some critical thinking.
I will say this....the FF's were trying to avoid an Iran where the religion makes policy for the government. That Is Separation of Church and State.
I do hope you can see that clearly, possible you don't want to.

 

[Bush92]

The Constitution of the United States is the foundation upon which our nation rest. Rule of law is what the Founders intended. Not activists jurist from lower courts legislating from the bench.

The foundation upon which the United States rests is the Declaration of Independence. The country had a government then (committed to parchment in 1777). The Constitution established another government.

Constitution is the foundation and it replaced Articles of Confederation. Declaration of Independence was a list of grievances against the British Empire.

 

[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

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.

activist conservative judges, activist liberal judges
I just go with what the FF's intent was using common sense. It really isn't that hard.

 

[imawhosure]

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 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?

Can we tell we people that you have scheduled with your doctor to have your head extracted from your ass ?

No but we can tell you're a douchebag.

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.

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

Our Founders were very wise. They provided for a way of making changes to the Constitution if it is done through the mechanism provided.

One only has to look at other countries with :"living constitutions" and the abuses that arise there. Turkey is a prime example.

Let me tell ALL of you why the Leftists are having such a cow---------->

the Leftists (except for Obamacare, and almost all of those legislators got thrown out) have NEVER......except for what is in parenthesis, LEGISLATED big moves towards their nonsense, they USED THE COURTS.

Consider...……...how many states voted AGAINST gay marriage; and when I say states, I mean the CITIZENS of those states? What did the Leftists do? They ran to court, and YES......even CALIFORNIA voted against it!

You see, Leftists know they can NOT get their agenda passed by MAKING LAWS, because they can't get elected. The legislature doesn't work for them. So what do they do with a President like Obysmal? Well, remember what HE SAID when asked about just stamping the immigration law, "I can't do it! We have a CONSTITUTION!" But, he just signed EOs and did it anyway, didn't he!

That is why the Left needs the courts so badly. We can LEGISLATE, they need to DICTATE! And once the dictate, they need the courts to say it is all ok for them to do it.

Just look at how they abuse---------> AZ tries to enforce immigration law. They get court to say immigration is up to the feds. Trump tries it, they judge shop and say, no-no-no.

THEY NEED THE COURTS! Why do you think they are slow walking all of Trumps nominees? Last I seen, at the rate they are going, it would take 12 years!

The REAL polls (not the national generic poll) are looking very good for us, and it is incumbent on YOU to vote in the midterms. I am no fan of RINO's, but if the choice is between a RINO, and someone who will back the far Left Socialists, we have no choice. It is OUR job to force the RINO's out in the Republican primary, NOT the general election!

So, in closing...…...remember, the MORE originalist the Supreme Court is, the larger dagger to the heart of the Leftist/Socialists. No, not because they are going to over turn Roe V Wade, but rather because without the court, they have to pass laws, and to do that, they have to get elected. And if they are elected and pass a SOCIALIST law, they will quickly get UNELECTED next time, lol...…..and they KNOW IT!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

"Limited liability" is a financial term. That protection does not extend to criminality.

Shareholders wouldn't face jail time for criminal activity in the corporation though. That would be ultimately the CEO and CFO it it went to the top.

A shareholder is not an employee of the corporation.

They most certainly can be.

 

[Bush92]

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.......

“Free state.” Liberals want a controlled public.