We DO NOT Have a Living Constitution

[Bush92]

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.

They were the original Libertarians.

 

[Bush92]

Founders set up a government with states having the preponderance of interaction with a citizens daily lives...not a central federal authority. I know when I was in the military the first thing any grunts would bring up in a discussion is”what state ya from?”

 

[g5000]

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.

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.

They can be, but it is not shareholders who are held liable for crimes committed by a corporation just because they are shareholders.

Context, dude. Context.

 

[g5000]

Founders set up a government with states having the preponderance of interaction with a citizens daily lives...not a central federal authority. I know when I was in the military the first thing any grunts would bring up in a discussion is”what state ya from?”

Because asking what country they were from was moot.

Unless it was obvious they were foreigners. Then the first question was, "What country you from, boy?"

 

[Clementine]

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

"Living document" is a term leftists invented so they could destroy the constitution. They simply do not like anything about it. Obama once lamented during an interview that the constitution didn't give enough power to government to do what he thought it should do. Our constitution and Bill of Rights were designed to keep the power with the people. It was intended to stop this country from moving to the extreme left or right. At the far right, you have zero government and anarchy. At the far left, you have an oligarchy. A constitutional Republic is closer to the right, with just enough government to fulfill it's duty. That duty consists of doing what is necessary to uphold our inalienable rights. It means protecting the country to ensure that other countries cannot take us over and instill their own government. It means ensuring equality and justice. It means protecting all of our rights, which includes the 1st and 2nd amendments, much to the dismay of the left.

When they say living document, they are trying to go back and re-interpret what our founders were saying. Regarding the 2nd amendment, they wanted each American to be able to rise up and fight for the country, even against government, should the need arise. Guns are not just for hunting and protecting our lives. We must have the ability to keep government in check.

When a government seeks to disarm people, it ALWAYS means that they are wanting to take the power away from the people. Gun control is not and has never been about our safety. It amazes me that some actually buy into that bullshit.

Our founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing. Government has long ago overstepped it's bounds and needs to be reeled in.

Leftists will continue to elect judges who crap all over the constitution by attaching new meaning to it or just ignoring it altogether.

They will hate any SCOTUS picks who fully believe in the constitution.

 

[candycorn]

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!

Kavanaugh seemed like a decent choice to me.

 

[candycorn]

It’s understandable that you’re afraid to answer the question....poor baby

And, it's understandable that you have to make a strawman argument....poor baby.

No..it’s an example of the idiocy of everything having to fit within the strict confines of the stated words. We wouldn’t have an air force, NASA, FEMA, Social Security, Medicare, and a thousand other vital government services if we listened to this garbage.

But most directly affecting the lives of everyday people is the right to privacy that is not defined in the Constitution but is surely an expectation.

So why don’t you answer the question?

The Constitution protects the people from government. I hope that answers your strawman argument.

The tap dance continues.

So it protects those that broadcast your personal information by making sure they can’t be prosecuted? Is that what the GOP stands for?

You suck at ballet.

Yeah I do suck at ballet and proud of it. But, you suck at the Constitution. It was never meant to micro manage, that was left to the states.
good grief...now on with your strawman scenarios.

One would think it would be easier to get a simple “yes”or “no” from someone like you who, if nothing else, is very simple.

Wonder how Cavanaugh will answer the question when asked during the hearings?

 

[grainbely]

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.

They can be, but it is not shareholders who are held liable for crimes committed by a corporation just because they are shareholders.

Context, dude. Context.

That's sort of what I was getting at. I responded to a post that said corporations are just groups of people exercising their individual rights, to which I was trying to say was wrong. A corporation is a separate legal entity which has had special rights contrived for it that weren't laid out in the constitution. It's ownership has limited liability, I suppose unless they hold executive positions. I wouldn't consider it to be the employees of the corporation that are exercising their rights when a corporation engages in political activity, because it(its executives) as an entity has a fiduciary duty to the ownership - are acting on behalf of them. With that in mind it wouldn't be individuals of their own political leanings deciding to take action. It would be an economical decision to support or oppose legislation, regulations, or anything else that can impact the corporation's viability. They would perform cost benefit analysis and use other tools to determine the feasibility of taking action. It would or maybe should not be personal political ideologies of the employed individuals that are being adopted by the strategic management of the corporation. When you see a corporation or really any business taking action in the political or public arena it's never of goodwill. Even when they say it is, that's just part of the brand and value they are trying to sell. It should be assumed to be a calculated decision and message looking for a favorable reaction. To me, even when a business owner swears up and down they would die for their customer, that's still branding. They are differentiating from a direct or perceived competitor to keep or gain customers.

 

[Meister]

And, it's understandable that you have to make a strawman argument....poor baby.

No..it’s an example of the idiocy of everything having to fit within the strict confines of the stated words. We wouldn’t have an air force, NASA, FEMA, Social Security, Medicare, and a thousand other vital government services if we listened to this garbage.

But most directly affecting the lives of everyday people is the right to privacy that is not defined in the Constitution but is surely an expectation.

So why don’t you answer the question?

The Constitution protects the people from government. I hope that answers your strawman argument.

The tap dance continues.

So it protects those that broadcast your personal information by making sure they can’t be prosecuted? Is that what the GOP stands for?

You suck at ballet.

Yeah I do suck at ballet and proud of it. But, you suck at the Constitution. It was never meant to micro manage, that was left to the states.
good grief...now on with your strawman scenarios.

One would think it would be easier to get a simple “yes”or “no” from someone like you who, if nothing else, is very simple.

Wonder how Cavanaugh will answer the question when asked during the hearings?

why would I even take you and your strawman questions seriously with you insults?

 

[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!

Kavanaugh seemed like a decent choice to me.

Well Candy, he is probably the most moderate, truth be told. I know the Left hates originalists, but remember, original intent made us the greatest country the world has ever been witness to.

As long as legislators legislate, and Supremes decide if it is constitutional or not, I have no problem.

It is when Supremes legislate, because right or left, they were NOT elected, and we...….as of this writing......can not throw them out.

It is up to congress to LEGISLATE! I vote for the way I want, you vote for the way you want. Our legislators create a law. The Supremes decide if it is constitutional, that is how the system is supposed to work.

 

[candycorn]

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!

Kavanaugh seemed like a decent choice to me.

Well Candy, he is probably the most moderate, truth be told. I know the Left hates originalists, but remember, original intent made us the greatest country the world has ever been witness to.

As long as legislators legislate, and Supremes decide if it is constitutional or not, I have no problem.

It is when Supremes legislate, because right or left, they were NOT elected, and we...….as of this writing......can not throw them out.

It is up to congress to LEGISLATE! I vote for the way I want, you vote for the way you want. Our legislators create a law. The Supremes decide if it is constitutional, that is how the system is supposed to work.

Right.

Hey, I just asked if it was legal to take your information and broadcast it. Only a very small percentage would be okay with that happening to them….so most would seek legal relief from it happening. IF the Constitution is “dead”, please show me where it would offer any relief to those having their ID numbers, medical history, etc…. broadcast.

For some reason…the question seems too complex for the lesser lights among us.

 

[candycorn]

No..it’s an example of the idiocy of everything having to fit within the strict confines of the stated words. We wouldn’t have an air force, NASA, FEMA, Social Security, Medicare, and a thousand other vital government services if we listened to this garbage.

But most directly affecting the lives of everyday people is the right to privacy that is not defined in the Constitution but is surely an expectation.

So why don’t you answer the question?

The Constitution protects the people from government. I hope that answers your strawman argument.

The tap dance continues.

So it protects those that broadcast your personal information by making sure they can’t be prosecuted? Is that what the GOP stands for?

You suck at ballet.

Yeah I do suck at ballet and proud of it. But, you suck at the Constitution. It was never meant to micro manage, that was left to the states.
good grief...now on with your strawman scenarios.

One would think it would be easier to get a simple “yes”or “no” from someone like you who, if nothing else, is very simple.

Wonder how Cavanaugh will answer the question when asked during the hearings?

why would I even take you and your strawman questions seriously with you insults?

Ok.

 

[Crepitus]

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

Well it's not really living anymore. Conservatives have been trying to kill it since regan.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

Well it's not really living anymore. Conservatives have been trying to kill it since regan.

It's Reagan...moron.

Conservatives have gotten it out of the steamer trunk, dusted it off, and might actually try to govern by it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

Well it's not really living anymore. Conservatives have been trying to kill it since regan.

By the way...Obama is not spelled regan.

 

[Crepitus]

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

Well it's not really living anymore. Conservatives have been trying to kill it since regan.

It's Reagan...moron.

Conservatives have gotten it out of the steamer trunk, dusted it off, and might actually try to govern by it.

Don't you mean Raygun?

"Conservatives" are reinterpreting it.

 

[Crepitus]

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

Well it's not really living anymore. Conservatives have been trying to kill it since regan.

By the way...Obama is not spelled regan.

That's President Obama to you conservitard.

 

[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

Well it's not really living anymore. Conservatives have been trying to kill it since regan.

By the way...Obama is not spelled regan.

That's President Obama to you conservitard.

That man was never president beyond the title.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

Well it's not really living anymore. Conservatives have been trying to kill it since regan.

By the way...Obama is not spelled regan.

That's President Obama to you conservitard.

Not any more...dickweed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

And let me guess, the interpretation of the Constitution is STRICTLY how you want it to be interpreted, right?