PDA

View Full Version : The Constitution as Written or as Interpreted?



Pages : [1] 2 3

MisterVeritis
08-14-2018, 03:01 PM
This is a decent article about why we find ourselves in the position we are in.


HOW TO RESTORE THE RULE OF LAWThis month marks the fifth anniversary of the Convention of States Project. Having been involved with the effort for all five of those years, I have never been more convinced than now that our Constitution’s Article V process for a “convention for proposing amendments” holds the key to restoring our constitutional republic. I took my first course in constitutional law as an undergraduate political science student. Throughout that semester, despite my earning high marks, I wondered if I was somehow missing something essential to understanding the Constitution. I simply could not grasp the connection between the text that I read there, on the one hand, and our actual federal government, on the other. How could a government granted so few powers in the Constitution wield such incredible authority over every aspect of its citizens’ lives?


Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2018/08/how-to-restore-the-rule-of-law/#hYjOO2b6jOwgQmqc.99
The bottom line is that we suffer under a judicial tyranny never intended by the Framers. We can fight back. The Article V convention of States to propose amendments is the Constitutional method we have to do so.

Chris
08-14-2018, 03:20 PM
While any text requires interpretation, I do agree with the author of the OP article that that interpretation should be based on the actual text and not a telephone game of evolving interpretations.

ripmeister
08-14-2018, 03:58 PM
Yep. I take the Bible literally as well since it was written by a bunch of guys wandering around in the desert a couple thousand years ago.

MisterVeritis
08-14-2018, 04:03 PM
Yep. I take the Bible literally as well since it was written by a bunch of guys wandering around in the desert a couple thousand years ago.
If you want to disrupt please do so elsewhere. I suggest any one of Exo's threads.

roadmaster
08-14-2018, 04:05 PM
As written.

nathanbforrest45
08-14-2018, 04:07 PM
As written. Anything else renders it worthless

ripmeister
08-14-2018, 04:08 PM
If you want to disrupt please do so elsewhere. I suggest any one of Exo's threads.
Not a disruption, rather a comparison. I thought you would have been sharp enough to catch that.

MisterVeritis
08-14-2018, 04:13 PM
Article III US Constitution:

Section 1The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/102/judicial-vesting-clause) in one supreme Court, (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/103/supreme-court) and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/47/inferior-courts)The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/104/good-behavior-clause), and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/105/judicial-compensation-clause)
Section 2The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/107/judicial-power), and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/108/treaties) — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/109/ambassadors) — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/110/admiralty) — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/111/federal-party) — to Controversies between two or more States; (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/112/interstate-disputes) — between a State and Citizens of another State (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/113/citizen-state-diversity); —between Citizens of different States; (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/114/diversity-clause) — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/115/land-grant-jurisdiction-clause) and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/113/citizen-state-diversity)
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/116/original-jurisdiction)In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/117/appellate-jurisdiction-clause)
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/118/criminal-trials)
Section 3Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/119/treason)
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/120/punishment-of-treason)

MisterVeritis
08-14-2018, 04:14 PM
There is nothing in the Constitution granting five men and women in black dresses the right or authority to decide every important issue. It is time to end the judicial tyranny.

MisterVeritis
08-14-2018, 04:15 PM
Not a disruption, rather a comparison. I thought you would have been sharp enough to catch that.
Please contribute or go elsewhere.

Cletus
08-14-2018, 05:31 PM
Certainly as written. However, it is vitally important to remember that the meanings of words evolve over time, so the Constitution needs to applied as written with the understanding of what the words meant at the time they were written.

Captdon
08-14-2018, 05:47 PM
This is a decent article about why we find ourselves in the position we are in.


HOW TO RESTORE THE RULE OF LAW

This month marks the fifth anniversary of the Convention of States Project. Having been involved with the effort for all five of those years, I have never been more convinced than now that our Constitution’s Article V process for a “convention for proposing amendments” holds the key to restoring our constitutional republic. I took my first course in constitutional law as an undergraduate political science student. Throughout that semester, despite my earning high marks, I wondered if I was somehow missing something essential to understanding the Constitution. I simply could not grasp the connection between the text that I read there, on the one hand, and our actual federal government, on the other. How could a government granted so few powers in the Constitution wield such incredible authority over every aspect of its citizens’ lives?


Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2018/08/how-to-restore-the-rule-of-law/#hYjOO2b6jOwgQmqc.99


The bottom line is that we suffer under a judicial tyranny never intended by the Framers. We can fight back. The Article V convention of States to propose amendments is the Constitutional method we have to do so.


You and I discussed this once before. We agreed on one thing without hesitation. Nowhere does the Constitution allow SCOTUS the power to decide on the Constitutionality of anything.

I think Jefferson and the Congress at the time should have said so the Court and we wouldn't have this problem.

An aside. One of the biggest cases SCOTUS decided was Brown v Board of Education. I don't believe they had an role in that problem The federal government has the right to enforce the Constitution and only needed to do so under the 14th Amendment.

MisterVeritis
08-14-2018, 05:53 PM
The only way to fix this problem is through the amendment process.

Ethereal
08-14-2018, 05:56 PM
Neither.

The constitution as originally intended.

Text is merely an attempt to convey intent. And interpretation is an attempt to discern the intent.

Dr. Who
08-14-2018, 06:24 PM
Absent a connotative contextual construction approach to Constitutional interpretation and multiple amendments, it would have long ago, under a hyperliteral approach, been confined to the dustbin of time as an anachronistic document. There is little about 21st-century America that bears any remote resemblance to 18th-century America or the 18th-century world in general. It is therefore often necessary for SCOTUS to undertake a comprehensive analysis of the history and purpose of the various articles of the Constitution to interpret their meaning in the context of a largely alien world. Both the creation of SCOTUS as well as the ability to alter the Constitution by Amendment were intended to maintain the relevancy of the Constitution and not hamstring a new nation with a rigid anachronistic directive.

MisterVeritis
08-14-2018, 06:30 PM
Neither.

The constitution as originally intended.

Text is merely an attempt to convey intent. And interpretation is an attempt to discern the intent.
As written includes what the framers intended based on their words and their written discussions.

MisterVeritis
08-14-2018, 06:31 PM
Absent a connotative contextual construction approach to Constitutional interpretation and multiple amendments, it would have long ago, under a hyperliteral approach, been confined to the dustbin of time as an anachronistic document. There is little about 21st-century America that bears any remote resemblance to 18th-century America or the 18th-century world in general. It is therefore often necessary for SCOTUS to undertake a comprehensive analysis of the history and purpose of the various articles of the Constitution to interpret their meaning in the context of a largely alien world. Both the creation of SCOTUS as well as the ability to alter the Constitution by Amendment were intended to maintain the relevancy of the Constitution and not hamstring a new nation with a rigid anachronistic directive.
What a crock of doo-doo.

nathanbforrest45
08-14-2018, 06:51 PM
Absent a connotative contextual construction approach to Constitutional interpretation and multiple amendments, it would have long ago, under a hyperliteral approach, been confined to the dustbin of time as an anachronistic document. There is little about 21st-century America that bears any remote resemblance to 18th-century America or the 18th-century world in general. It is therefore often necessary for SCOTUS to undertake a comprehensive analysis of the history and purpose of the various articles of the Constitution to interpret their meaning in the context of a largely alien world. Both the creation of SCOTUS as well as the ability to alter the Constitution by Amendment were intended to maintain the relevancy of the Constitution and not hamstring a new nation with a rigid anachronistic directive.

Wow, I don't think I have ever read a more verbose and pointless screed in my entire life.

Dr. Who
08-14-2018, 06:52 PM
What a crock of doo-doo.
Your inability to present a cogent argument is noted.

MisterVeritis
08-14-2018, 06:54 PM
What a crock of doo-doo.

Your inability to present a cogent argument is noted.
Is that what you believed that was? LOL. You are not an American, are you?

Dr. Who
08-14-2018, 06:55 PM
Wow, I don't think I have ever read a more verbose and pointless screed in my entire life.

Another one without an argument.

MisterVeritis
08-14-2018, 06:57 PM
Another one without an argument.
You pretend to be (far) more than you are. Why do you do that?

Do you believe justices can amend the Constitution through interpretive dance?

midcan5
08-14-2018, 07:15 PM
When I get a chance I will quote some of the book linked below, for the reader who wants to understand how the SCOTUS actually interprets the constitution check it out.

'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' Ian Millhiser

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22715946-injustices

"In this powerful indictment of a venerated institution, Ian Millhiser tells the history of the Supreme Court through the eyes of the everyday people who have suffered the most from it. America ratified three constitutional amendments to provide equal rights to freed slaves, but the justices spent thirty years largely dismantling these amendments. Then they spent the next forty years rewriting them into a shield for the wealthy and the powerful. In the Warren era and the few years following it, progressive justices restored the Constitution's promises of equality, free speech, and fair justice for the accused. But, Millhiser contends, that was an historic accident. Indeed, if it weren't for several unpredictable events, Brown v. Board of Education could have gone the other way." from goodreads link above



"Cold, grasping, bleak, graceless, and dull; unctuous, sleek, pitiless, and crass; a pallid vulgarian floating through life on clouds of acrid cologne and trailed by a vanguard of fawning divorce lawyers, the devil is probably eerily similar to Donald Trump—though perhaps just a little nicer." https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2011/05/a-person-you-flee-at-parties

nathanbforrest45
08-14-2018, 07:22 PM
Another one without an argument.

I knew you would come back with something as inane as this. If I have to have a pair of dictionaries by my side to understand this you didn't write it right.

I think after sifting through all the high sounding words and phrases I think it boils down to you, the Constitution only means what each generation wants it to mean and there are no universal truths. Freedom and the proper role of government in 1776 has an entirely different meaning in 2018. Is that the gist of your argument?

nathanbforrest45
08-14-2018, 07:23 PM
When I get a chance I will quote some of the book linked below, for the reader who wants to understand how the SCOTUS actually interprets the constitution check it out.

'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' Ian Millhiser

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22715946-injustices

"In this powerful indictment of a venerated institution, Ian Millhiser tells the history of the Supreme Court through the eyes of the everyday people who have suffered the most from it. America ratified three constitutional amendments to provide equal rights to freed slaves, but the justices spent thirty years largely dismantling these amendments. Then they spent the next forty years rewriting them into a shield for the wealthy and the powerful. In the Warren era and the few years following it, progressive justices restored the Constitution's promises of equality, free speech, and fair justice for the accused. But, Millhiser contends, that was an historic accident. Indeed, if it weren't for several unpredictable events, Brown v. Board of Education could have gone the other way." from goodreads link above



"Cold, grasping, bleak, graceless, and dull; unctuous, sleek, pitiless, and crass; a pallid vulgarian floating through life on clouds of acrid cologne and trailed by a vanguard of fawning divorce lawyers, the devil is probably eerily similar to Donald Trump—though perhaps just a little nicer." https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2011/05/a-person-you-flee-at-parties

Who cares?

nathanbforrest45
08-14-2018, 07:28 PM
Just so everyone knows my position I don't give a flying fig what the Supreme Court thinks the Constitution means. I care what the Founding Father's thought the Constitution meant. OK, understand now?

Chris
08-14-2018, 07:31 PM
Absent a connotative contextual construction approach to Constitutional interpretation and multiple amendments, it would have long ago, under a hyperliteral approach, been confined to the dustbin of time as an anachronistic document. There is little about 21st-century America that bears any remote resemblance to 18th-century America or the 18th-century world in general. It is therefore often necessary for SCOTUS to undertake a comprehensive analysis of the history and purpose of the various articles of the Constitution to interpret their meaning in the context of a largely alien world. Both the creation of SCOTUS as well as the ability to alter the Constitution by Amendment were intended to maintain the relevancy of the Constitution and not hamstring a new nation with a rigid anachronistic directive.


Who's just trying to say it's out of date.

She obiously doesn't believe in timeless principles and universal truths and so just doesn't see them embedded in the Constitution. Free speech, for example, is, to her, outdated.

Anyway, it would help if she credited her sources.

Dr. Who
08-14-2018, 08:15 PM
I knew you would come back with something as inane as this. If I have to have a pair of dictionaries by my side to understand this you didn't write it right.

I think after sifting through all the high sounding words and phrases I think it boils down you, the Constitution only means what each generation wants it to mean and there are no universal truths. Freedom and the proper role of government in 1776 has an entirely different meaning in 2018. Is that the gist of your argument?
The gist of my argument is that the original text has to be interpreted based on its ultimate purpose which can only be adduced based on an in-depth analysis of other contemporary documents, not for its literal meaning. That's what connotative contextual construction means. Understanding the purpose behind the words as they were constructed then, and in this case, interpreting them in the context of an evolving legal, social, political and technological landscape. If the purpose of the Constitution was the preservation of the nation, else why have a constitution at all, it must respond to its changing needs while trying to preserve the spirit of its origins.

Dr. Who
08-14-2018, 08:48 PM
Who's just trying to say it's out of date.

She obiously doesn't believe in timeless principles and universal truths and so just doesn't see them embedded in the Constitution. Free speech, for example, is, to her, outdated.

Anyway, it would help if she credited her sources.
Everything that you just stated is completely incorrect. Principles may be timeless, but words are not. Their literal meanings change as the context in which they are used, changes. Some words completely disappear from the modern dialect. I did not address free speech, so I don't know why you are attributing your opinion of my opinion in the context of this thread. My sources are myself and my background in interpretation of very old contracts that did not contemplate 21st-century realities. The process for defending those contracts is exactly like the process undertaken by SCOTUS judges when faced with an issue not literally contemplated by the Constitution. Consider the process undertaken by SCOTUS in the Heller decision and the research into the Federalist papers and other contemporary documents. The Court examined the purpose behind the words and applied it to the case at hand.

FYI, there are no universal truths. We once believed that the sun revolved around the earth. At that time, that was considered to be a universal truth. Our conception of universal truth is limited by our knowledge and experience at any given time.

Chris
08-14-2018, 09:09 PM
Everything that you just stated is completely incorrect. Principles may be timeless, but words are not. Their literal meanings change as the context in which they are used, changes. Some words completely disappear from the modern dialect. I did not address free speech, so I don't know why you are attributing your opinion of my opinion in the context of this thread. My sources are myself and my background in interpretation of very old contracts that did not contemplate 21st-century realities. The process for defending those contracts is exactly like the process undertaken by SCOTUS judges when faced with an issue not literally contemplated by the Constitution. Consider the process undertaken by SCOTUS in the Heller decision and the research into the Federalist papers and other contemporary documents. The Court examined the purpose behind the words and applied it to the case at hand.

FYI, there are no universal truths. We once believed that the sun revolved around the earth. At that time, that was considered to be a universal truth. Our conception of universal truth is limited by our knowledge and experience at any given time.


Well, that's the reason why textualism is important, by it you determine the meanings of the words as written and voted on, the meaning of the words that express those timeless principles and universal truths. Those things you as a liberal don't believe it, want to undermine, bury in 1000 words when 3 or 4 would do.

Free speech is in the Constitution. It is an example of a timeless principle and universal truth. That's why I brought it up. Here: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Guess what, the words mean the same then as they do now.

The Constitution is not an insurance document.

So much for your trying to obfuscate what is clear.

The sun rotating around the earth was considered a fact, facts aren't truths. BTW, how can we conceive of truths when there are none? How is it that you even communicate anything?

MisterVeritis
08-14-2018, 09:39 PM
The gist of my argument is that the original text has to be interpreted based on its ultimate purpose which can only be adduced based on an in-depth analysis of other contemporary documents, not for its literal meaning. That's what connotative contextual construction means. Understanding the purpose behind the words as they were constructed then, and in this case, interpreting them in the context of an evolving legal, social, political and technological landscape. If the purpose of the Constitution was the preservation of the nation, else why have a constitution at all, it must respond to its changing needs while trying to preserve the spirit of its origins.

As written includes what the framers intended based on their words and their written discussions. The Constitution can be amended. It is no Constitution of it can be interpreted away.

Sergeant Gleed
08-14-2018, 10:23 PM
The Rodents cannot afford the "as written option".

Let's start with the basics:

As Written, "We the People" means the citizens of the United States, and not, as the Rodents want "everyone that can crawl across the border".

Thus the decennial census can certainly count ALL the heads. That's good to know. But ONLY the heads that can claim "citizenship" should be counted for apportioning representation in the House.

Annnnnndddd…..if the literal meaning of the phrase led to a literal head count of citizens.....the Rodents would lose at least five seats in the House from California alone (and thus five Electoral college votes).

Yet I've heard courts rule that ANY head, greasy or otherwise, has to be counted towards "representation". Bullshit. That absolutely is not the intention on the Founders, to give the control of the Legislature to aliens.

Sergeant Gleed
08-14-2018, 10:29 PM
You and I discussed this once before. We agreed on one thing without hesitation. Nowhere does the Constitution allow SCOTUS the power to decide on the Constitutionality of anything.

I think Jefferson and the Congress at the time should have said so the Court and we wouldn't have this problem.

An aside. One of the biggest cases SCOTUS decided was Brown v Board of Education. I don't believe they had an role in that problem The federal government has the right to enforce the Constitution and only needed to do so under the 14th Amendment.



?

Brown v Board of Education was necessary ONLY because the USSC earlier interfered and ruled on Plessy v Ferguson that "separate" was okay, so long as it was "equal".

Sergeant Gleed
08-14-2018, 10:31 PM
The only way to fix this problem is through the amendment process.


We do have a Second Amendment for a purpose.

Sergeant Gleed
08-14-2018, 10:35 PM
Another one without an argument.

Okay.

What aspect of human nature has changed since 1788?
You're not silly enough to believe the Constitution is affected by TECHNOLOGY, are you?

Sergeant Gleed
08-14-2018, 10:36 PM
You pretend to be (far) more than you are. Why do you do that?

Do you believe justices can amend the Constitution through interpretive dance?

Ginsberg's too old to stay awake, let alone dance.

nathanbforrest45
08-14-2018, 11:02 PM
The gist of my argument is that the original text has to be interpreted based on its ultimate purpose which can only be adduced based on an in-depth analysis of other contemporary documents, not for its literal meaning. That's what connotative contextual construction means. Understanding the purpose behind the words as they were constructed then, and in this case, interpreting them in the context of an evolving legal, social, political and technological landscape. If the purpose of the Constitution was the preservation of the nation, else why have a constitution at all, it must respond to its changing needs while trying to preserve the spirit of its origins.

To boil this down to its essential I think you are saying, like Humpty Dumpty, that words mean just what you want them to mean, neither more nor less.

May I make a suggestion, rather than trying to snow us with your "wonderful" vocabulary why don't you distill your pompous pronouncements into something everyone would be willing to ponder rather than just laugh at? Its simple really, the ultimate purpose of the constitution was to allow self government by the people and to allow the most freedom for the highest number of people. Its ultimate purpose was to limit the scope of government in order that the people could have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I don't believe the Founding Fathers wrote in code, what they wrote is what they meant, they didn't consider the "cognitive contextual construction", they merely wrote what they meant.

Furthermore, the only reason those elements you list are "evolving" is because we no longer consider the Constitution a sacred document but something that can be changed on a whim

nathanbforrest45
08-14-2018, 11:07 PM
Everything that you just stated is completely incorrect. Principles may be timeless, but words are not. Their literal meanings change as the context in which they are used, changes. Some words completely disappear from the modern dialect. I did not address free speech, so I don't know why you are attributing your opinion of my opinion in the context of this thread. My sources are myself and my background in interpretation of very old contracts that did not contemplate 21st-century realities. The process for defending those contracts is exactly like the process undertaken by SCOTUS judges when faced with an issue not literally contemplated by the Constitution. Consider the process undertaken by SCOTUS in the Heller decision and the research into the Federalist papers and other contemporary documents. The Court examined the purpose behind the words and applied it to the case at hand.

FYI, there are no universal truths. We once believed that the sun revolved around the earth. At that time, that was considered to be a universal truth. Our conception of universal truth is limited by our knowledge and experience at any given time.
There are universal truths, we just may not understand them at the moment. There are absolutes, the boiling point of water at sea level, the freezing point of water at sea level, the howls of leftest when they don't get their way. Those things are not relative.

Ethereal
08-14-2018, 11:16 PM
Absent a connotative contextual construction approach to Constitutional interpretation and multiple amendments, it would have long ago, under a hyperliteral approach, been confined to the dustbin of time as an anachronistic document. There is little about 21st-century America that bears any remote resemblance to 18th-century America or the 18th-century world in general. It is therefore often necessary for SCOTUS to undertake a comprehensive analysis of the history and purpose of the various articles of the Constitution to interpret their meaning in the context of a largely alien world. Both the creation of SCOTUS as well as the ability to alter the Constitution by Amendment were intended to maintain the relevancy of the Constitution and not hamstring a new nation with a rigid anachronistic directive.
Or they could just, you know, use the amendment process.

nathanbforrest45
08-14-2018, 11:21 PM
Your interpretation of "old contracts" is bogus. While I first started in the transportation field one of my first duties was that of a "Rate and Division Clerk" with the Western Maryland Railway. This job was the setting up of division of the freight revenue between the various railroads that were party to the move. This was controlled by division contract between the various freight lines. Some of the railroads had been merged with other railroads and they merged as well. Some of the contracts were upwards of 100 years old. The essence of the contract did not change, even though in some cases the physical routes had changed. They were not affected by time or technology. It was a universal truth that on a movement from Point A to Point B via the Baltimore and Ohio, The Reading, and finally the Western Maryland the revenue split would be X for the B&O, X-2% for the RDG and X+4% for the WM. It didn't matter if that move had happened in 1850 or in 1970.

A contract is a contract and the intent of the original framers is what matters, not the interpretation some years into the future.

Dr. Who
08-14-2018, 11:31 PM
To boil this down to its essential I think you are saying, like Humpty Dumpty, that words mean just what you want them to mean, neither more nor less.

May I make a suggestion, rather than trying to snow us with your "wonderful" vocabulary why don't you distill your pompous pronouncements into something everyone would be willing to ponder rather than just laugh at? Its simple really, the ultimate purpose of the constitution was to allow self government by the people and to allow the most freedom for the highest number of people. Its ultimate purpose was to limit the scope of government in order that the people could have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I don't believe the Founding Fathers wrote in code, what they wrote is what they meant, they didn't consider the "cognitive contextual construction", they merely wrote what they meant.

Furthermore, the only reason those elements you list are "evolving" is because we no longer consider the Constitution a sacred document but something that can be changed on a whim

I'll dumb it down for you. Without SCOTUS rulings and Amendments, your "sacred" document would be nothing more than an antique exhibit in a museum, long since replaced with something that addressed the realities of the almost 300 years of changes that time has wrought.

FYI the word "sacred" is a religious term and wholly inappropriate in a Constitutional conversation. The Constitution is not a "sacred" document nor were the founding fathers/framers religious icons or deities. Some of them were the first to propose Amendments to the Constitution just as soon as the ink was dry.

nathanbforrest45
08-14-2018, 11:33 PM
I'll dumb it down for you. Without SCOTUS rulings and Amendments, your "sacred" document would be nothing more than an antique exhibit in a museum, long since replaced with something that addressed the realities of the almost 300 years of changes that time has wrought.

FYI the word "sacred" is a religious term and wholly inappropriate in a Constitutional conversation. The Constitution is not a "sacred" document nor were the founding fathers/framers religious icons or deities. Some of them were the first to propose Amendments to the Constitution just as soon as the ink was dry.
\
I am finished with you because of your "dumb it down for you" That is what I hate about you pompous assholes. You think you know more than everyone else and you can insult us at will.

Well, go have sex with a goat.

Dr. Who
08-14-2018, 11:35 PM
Your interpretation of "old contracts" is bogus. While I first started in the transportation field one of my first duties was that of a "Rate and Division Clerk" with the Western Maryland Railway. This job was the setting up of division of the freight revenue between the various railroads that were party to the move. This was controlled by division contract between the various freight lines. Some of the railroads had been merged with other railroads and they merged as well. Some of the contracts were upwards of 100 years old. The essence of the contract did not change, even though in some cases the physical routes had changed. They were not affected by time or technology. It was a universal truth that on a movement from Point A to Point B via the Baltimore and Ohio, The Reading, and finally the Western Maryland the revenue split would be X for the B&O, X-2% for the RDG and X+4% for the WM. It didn't matter if that move had happened in 1850 or in 1970.

A contract is a contract and the intent of the original framers is what matters, not the interpretation some years into the future.
Contracts are not all simplistic. Many are highly complicated - some actually longer than the Constitution.

Dr. Who
08-14-2018, 11:39 PM
\
I am finished with you because of your "dumb it down for you" That is what I hate about you pompous assholes. You think you know more than everyone else and you can insult us at will.

Well, go have sex with a goat.
Pfft. You insult me, accuse me of "pompous pronouncements" and don't appreciate reciprocation. Bite me. Is that plain enough for you?

Dr. Who
08-14-2018, 11:46 PM
Or they could just, you know, use the amendment process.
They have, but partisan paralysis has been afflicting the process for some years and there are many who don't even recognize the Amendments and consider them "sacrilege". They treat the original Constitution like it was the biblical commandments as handed down by God.

Cletus
08-14-2018, 11:48 PM
I'll dumb it down for you. Without SCOTUS rulings and Amendments, your "sacred" document would be nothing more than an antique exhibit in a museum, long since replaced with something that addressed the realities of the almost 300 years of changes that time has wrought.

The Constitution was designed to be amended... not "interpreted" to make changes necessary to adapt to changing times. That is the ONLY way the document's meaning can be changed. The Supreme Court was never intended to be the final arbiter of what is or is not Constitutional. They lack the constitutional authority to "interpret" any clause of the constitution to mean anything other than what it actually says.


FYI the word "sacred" is a religious term and wholly inappropriate in a Constitutional conversation.

Not true, at all. The word "sacred" can have religious connotations, but it is not restricted to that. It also means "entitled to reverence and respect" and "highly valued and important" (Webster is your friend). So yes, the Constitution is indeed a "sacred" document, whether you like it or not.

Ethereal
08-14-2018, 11:54 PM
They have, but partisan paralysis has been afflicting the process for some years and there are many who don't even recognize the Amendments and consider them "sacrilege". They treat the original Constitution like it was the biblical commandments as handed down by God.

I was more referring to the idea that an originalist view of the constitution somehow precludes the possibility of change. The founders knew that things would evolve over time which is why they included an amendment process. So one can strictly interpret the constitution according to its original intent without being enthralled to the mores of the time in which it was written.

exotix
08-15-2018, 12:25 AM
This is a decent article about why we find ourselves in the position we are in.


HOW TO RESTORE THE RULE OF LAW

This month marks the fifth anniversary of the Convention of States Project. Having been involved with the effort for all five of those years, I have never been more convinced than now that our Constitution’s Article V process for a “convention for proposing amendments” holds the key to restoring our constitutional republic. I took my first course in constitutional law as an undergraduate political science student. Throughout that semester, despite my earning high marks, I wondered if I was somehow missing something essential to understanding the Constitution. I simply could not grasp the connection between the text that I read there, on the one hand, and our actual federal government, on the other. How could a government granted so few powers in the Constitution wield such incredible authority over every aspect of its citizens’ lives?


Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2018/08/how-to-restore-the-rule-of-law/#hYjOO2b6jOwgQmqc.99


The bottom line is that we suffer under a judicial tyranny never intended by the Framers. We can fight back. The Article V convention of States to propose amendments is the Constitutional method we have to do so.WND ? Really ? ... LOL

Cletus
08-15-2018, 02:23 AM
I was more referring to the idea that an originalist view of the constitution somehow precludes the possibility of change. The founders knew that things would evolve over time which is why they included an amendment process. So one can strictly interpret the constitution according to its original intent without being enthralled to the mores of the time in which it was written.
Good post.

MisterVeritis
08-15-2018, 06:58 AM
We do have a Second Amendment for a purpose.
You err.

Hoosier8
08-15-2018, 07:01 AM
I'll dumb it down for you. Without SCOTUS rulings and Amendments, your "sacred" document would be nothing more than an antique exhibit in a museum, long since replaced with something that addressed the realities of the almost 300 years of changes that time has wrought.

FYI the word "sacred" is a religious term and wholly inappropriate in a Constitutional conversation. The Constitution is not a "sacred" document nor were the founding fathers/framers religious icons or deities. Some of them were the first to propose Amendments to the Constitution just as soon as the ink was dry.

The context is universal. The amendments were added because they did not trust that idiots would not try and change the context. As it is the idiots have been trying ever since.

MisterVeritis
08-15-2018, 07:04 AM
I'll dumb it down for you. Without SCOTUS rulings and Amendments, your "sacred" document would be nothing more than an antique exhibit in a museum, long since replaced with something that addressed the realities of the almost 300 years of changes that time has wrought.
You conflate the legitimate amendment process with amendment via judicial fiat. I can tell you do not like the Constitution. It continues to be a small obstacle to tyranny. Tyranny you support.

FYI the word "sacred" is a religious term and wholly inappropriate in a Constitutional conversation. The Constitution is not a "sacred" document nor were the founding fathers/framers religious icons or deities. Some of them were the first to propose Amendments to the Constitution just as soon as the ink was dry.
On one of my shelves, I have a book written about America's sacred documents. It is a book about the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Would you feel less threatened if everyone used "revered" instead of sacred?

MisterVeritis
08-15-2018, 07:07 AM
HOW TO RESTORE THE RULE OF LAW
This month marks the fifth anniversary of the Convention of States Project. Having been involved with the effort for all five of those years, I have never been more convinced than now that our Constitution’s Article V process for a “convention for proposing amendments” holds the key to restoring our constitutional republic...


WND ? Really ? ... LOL

Yes. Really.

nathanbforrest45
08-15-2018, 07:09 AM
This issue will never be resolved because of the diametrically opposed thought processes of the two sides. On the one side you have those of us who believe in absolutes, that A Equal A, that something can be defined, not just for the immediate but for all time. The Constitution to us means exactly what the creators of that Constitution wanted it to mean. That meaning can be determined in "the ever changing world we live in" by reading the words of the Founding Fathers and by understanding the issues that lead to those words. ]

On the other side you have people like Dr. Who who believe in nothing beyond the last 30 seconds, that nothing is absolute, things mean what you want them to mean, be it gender, nationalism, the meaning of words like Nazi or Socialist or the meaning of the words in the Constitution.

This is a fundamental difference in philosophical outlooks and will never change until there is a complete collapse in society because of this belief in "nothing is real"

MisterVeritis
08-15-2018, 07:12 AM
This issue will never be resolved because of the diametrically opposed thought processes of the two sides. One the one side you have those of us who believe in absolutes, that A Equal A, that something can be defined, not just for the immediate but for all time. The Constitution to us means exactly what the creators of that Constitution wanted it to mean. That meaning can be determined in "the ever changing world we live in" by reading the words of the Founding Fathers and by understanding the issues that lead to those words. ]

On the other side you have people like Dr. Who who believe in nothing beyond the last 30 seconds, that nothing is absolute, things mean what you want them to mean, be it gender, nationalism, the meaning of words like Nazi or Socialist or the meaning of the words in the Constitution.

This is a fundamental difference in philosophical outlooks and will never change until there is a complete collapse in society because of this belief in "nothing is real"
Eventually, every difficult problem is resolved through bloodshed. This time will be no different.

Chris
08-15-2018, 08:05 AM
Who's real problem here is not citing an example. And when I introduced one, free speech, she dismissed it.

If the Constitution is outdated, don't obfuscate, present a good, clear example.

I'll present another example, the commerce clause. It is clear, yet the court has managed to stretch it to the breaking point to cover agenda's like equality and intrusions into private business to force them to serve people they do not want to.

nathanbforrest45
08-15-2018, 08:33 AM
Who's real problem here is not citing an example. And when I introduced one, free speech, she dismissed it.

If the Constitution is outdated, don't obfuscate, present a good, clear example.

I'll present another example, the commerce clause. It is clear, yet the court has managed to stretch it to the breaking point to cover agenda's like equality and intrusions into private business to force them to serve people they do not want to.

The most egregious b astardization of the Constitution in my opinion is how the left has interpreted the meaning of the "provide for the general welfare" clause. Their interpretation has totally gutted the restrictions the Founder's placed on government intrusion into our lives.

Chris
08-15-2018, 09:26 AM
The most egregious b astardization of the Constitution in my opinion is how the left has interpreted the meaning of the "provide for the general welfare" clause. Their interpretation has totally gutted the restrictions the Founder's placed on government intrusion into our lives.

Defintely. They have decided that "general" is outdated and removed that criterion altogether. They have also changed the meaning of welfare from prosperity to redistribution. That is what Who is defending with all her multisyllabic obfuscation.

MisterVeritis
08-15-2018, 09:35 AM
I'll dumb it down for you.
That is gracious of you. I make an effort to write at a fifth-grade level. I want you to understand. I have a Masters degree and could write as profoundly foggily as you do. It takes more effort to keep it simple, or in your words to dumb it down.

Captdon
08-15-2018, 11:48 AM
Just so everyone knows my position I don't give a flying fig what the Supreme Court thinks the Constitution means. I care what the Founding Father's thought the Constitution meant. OK, understand now?

I agree but we still have to live with it unless we change it.

Captdon
08-15-2018, 11:59 AM
The Rodents cannot afford the "as written option".

Let's start with the basics:

As Written, "We the People" means the citizens of the United States, and not, as the Rodents want "everyone that can crawl across the border".

Thus the decennial census can certainly count ALL the heads. That's good to know. But ONLY the heads that can claim "citizenship" should be counted for apportioning representation in the House.

Annnnnndddd…..if the literal meaning of the phrase led to a literal head count of citizens.....the Rodents would lose at least five seats in the House from California alone (and thus five Electoral college votes).

Yet I've heard courts rule that ANY head, greasy or otherwise, has to be counted towards "representation". Bull$#@!. That absolutely is not the intention on the Founders, to give the control of the Legislature to aliens.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-i#tooltip-1)



It was the intention of the writers. They said persons and then defines what they meant. Read Article 1 Section 2.

The only way too change it is by an amendment.

Captdon
08-15-2018, 12:03 PM
?

Brown v Board of Education was necessary ONLY because the USSC earlier interfered and ruled on Plessy v Ferguson that "separate" was okay, so long as it was "equal".

Oh, the Court was allowed to rule one time but not the other? Is that your argument?

The Court shouldn't have had an say in it. The Congress could have passed a law to enforce the Constitution. Either the Court can rule or it can't.

ripmeister
08-15-2018, 12:14 PM
As written includes what the framers intended based on their words and their written discussions. The Constitution can be amended. It is no Constitution of it can be interpreted away.
So who defines the intent?

MisterVeritis
08-15-2018, 12:17 PM
So who defines the intent?
Good question. Nearly all of it is clear. Do you have a specific topic you want to discuss?

Chris
08-15-2018, 12:22 PM
So who defines the intent?

Those who authored and those who voted on the words. It seems clear enough to me.

ripmeister
08-15-2018, 12:26 PM
They have, but partisan paralysis has been afflicting the process for some years and there are many who don't even recognize the Amendments and consider them "sacrilege". They treat the original Constitution like it was the biblical commandments as handed down by God.
And those biblical commandments were written down by some dude thousands of years ago in the deserts of the ME. Yet today we should take those commandments literally? No different.

Chris
08-15-2018, 12:29 PM
And those biblical commandments were written down by some dude thousands of years ago in the deserts of the ME. Yet today we should take those commandments literally? No different.

Some of them are pretty simple and commonsensical, like don't murder.

ripmeister
08-15-2018, 12:32 PM
Defintely. They have decided that "general" is outdated and removed that criterion altogether. They have also changed the meaning of welfare from prosperity to redistribution. That is what Who is defending with all her multisyllabic obfuscation.
Yet you all are "interpreting" these words to have a specific meaning as well. Some words are nebulous hence the need for interpretation. You just happen to think that your interpretation is the correct one.

ripmeister
08-15-2018, 12:36 PM
Good question. Nearly all of it is clear. Do you have a specific topic you want to discuss?
Some of its clear, some not so clear. The General Welfare clause has already been cited. What exactly is a militia and who is a part of a militia?

Captdon
08-15-2018, 12:37 PM
So who defines the intent?

How about the words of the people who wrote it? They weren't shy about writing about it. Madison and Hamilton debated it. They saw the document differently by degrees,not the gulf that liberals have opened.

ripmeister
08-15-2018, 12:38 PM
Those who authored and those who voted on the words. It seems clear enough to me.

I'm speaking of those in the present day. Do you claim to understand intent with regard to every aspect of the Constitution?

ripmeister
08-15-2018, 12:38 PM
Some of them are pretty simple and commonsensical, like don't murder.
Yes, some are and some aren't.

ripmeister
08-15-2018, 12:40 PM
How about the words of the people who wrote it? They weren't shy about writing about it. Madison and Hamilton debated it. They saw the document differently by degrees,not the gulf that liberals have opened.
Yes, secondary sources such as the Federalist Papers can help with interpretation or understanding of intent yet it is still an interpretation.

Chris
08-15-2018, 12:42 PM
Yet you all are "interpreting" these words to have a specific meaning as well. Some words are nebulous hence the need for interpretation. You just happen to think that your interpretation is the correct one.

Free speech is free speech. Commerce is commerce. What's so difficult?

Captdon
08-15-2018, 12:42 PM
Yet you all are "interpreting" these words to have a specific meaning as well. Some words are nebulous hence the need for interpretation. You just happen to think that your interpretation is the correct one.

The men who wrote it weren't lost in the desert. They wrote it and talked about it while it was happening. Read what they said and you won't have so much difficulty understanding what it means.

Chris
08-15-2018, 12:43 PM
Yes, some are and some aren't.

Which are difficult to understand? Not asking which might be difficult to follow, just understand?

Captdon
08-15-2018, 12:46 PM
Some of its clear, some not so clear. The General Welfare clause has already been cited. What exactly is a militia and who is a part of a militia?

All the people. It's not that complicated. It could be a state militia or a frontier militia. You can't have a militia if the people don't have the right to arms.

Captdon
08-15-2018, 12:49 PM
I'm speaking of those in the present day. Do you claim to understand intent with regard to every aspect of the Constitution?

If you read what the founders say it isn't difficult. Present day doesn't matter.If you don't like it today-amend it.

Captdon
08-15-2018, 12:50 PM
Yes, secondary sources such as the Federalist Papers can help with interpretation or understanding of intent yet it is still an interpretation.

By the men who wrote it? Are you serious? they didn't interpret it, they explained it.

nathanbforrest45
08-15-2018, 01:03 PM
Defintely. They have decided that "general" is outdated and removed that criterion altogether. They have also changed the meaning of welfare from prosperity to redistribution. That is what Who is defending with all her multisyllabic obfuscation.


I think DR, Who is using the "If you can't blind them with brilliance baffle them with bullsh!t" method of debate.

nathanbforrest45
08-15-2018, 01:12 PM
I'm speaking of those in the present day. Do you claim to understand intent with regard to every aspect of the Constitution?
You can know intent by studying the words of the authors of the document and to have a clear understanding of the history that shaped those words.

I may not know the intent until I need to know the intent. Then I make a point of studying the words of the authors. How do you know what they meant, spin the arrow?

nathanbforrest45
08-15-2018, 01:17 PM
By the men who wrote it? Are you serious? they didn't interpret it, they explained it.
Absolutely brilliant response.

exotix
08-15-2018, 01:24 PM
If you read what the founders say it isn't difficult. Present day doesn't matter.If you don't like it today-amend it.
By the men who wrote it? Are you serious? they didn't interpret it, they explained it.

You can know intent by studying the words of the authors of the document and to have a clear understanding of the history that shaped those words.

I may not know the intent until I need to know the intent. Then I make a point of studying the words of the authors. How do you know what they meant, spin the arrow?


Absolutely brilliant response.Really ? ... Good to hear you have no problem with this ...



In Ruling Against Trump, Judge Defines Anticorruption Clauses in Constitution for First Time

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/us/politics/trump-emoluments-lawsuit.html


Judge lets emoluments lawsuit against Trump move ahead


A lawsuit arguing President Donald Trump is violating the Constitution by benefiting from business with foreign governments can proceed, a judge for the U.S. District Court in Maryland ruled Wednesday.

The president's lawyers had sought to dismiss the case, but the motion was denied.





https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/46e94f1/2147483647/resize/1160x>/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F85%2Fd2%2 Fccefd716436c9173604adf2ea609%2F180725-donald-trump-ap-1160.jpg

MisterVeritis
08-15-2018, 01:28 PM
And those biblical commandments were written down by some dude thousands of years ago in the deserts of the ME. Yet today we should take those commandments literally? No different.
Of course, it is different. We have the framers original words. We have records of their debates. We have records of their newspaper articles. We have an enormous amount of information.

Why not just admit you are a tyrant wannabe and you find what is left of the Constitution a bit too constraining?

MisterVeritis
08-15-2018, 01:30 PM
Really ? ... Good to hear you have no problem with this ...
In Ruling Against Trump, Judge Defines Anticorruption Clauses in Constitution for First Time
The judge hasn't defined anything.

nathanbforrest45
08-15-2018, 01:48 PM
Of course I have no problem with his post. I am of sound mind and body, why would I have a problem with it?

Do you have a problem with it you wish to explain or are you just shooting from the shadows again?

ripmeister
08-15-2018, 02:03 PM
Which are difficult to understand? Not asking which might be difficult to follow, just understand?
I said nothing about difficulty of understanding, simply differences in interpretation.

ripmeister
08-15-2018, 02:06 PM
By the men who wrote it? Are you serious? they didn't interpret it, they explained it.

Sure. I was referring to current day interpretation based on those alternative sources. I think you misunderstood what I meant.

ripmeister
08-15-2018, 02:08 PM
You can know intent by studying the words of the authors of the document and to have a clear understanding of the history that shaped those words.

I may not know the intent until I need to know the intent. Then I make a point of studying the words of the authors. How do you know what they meant, spin the arrow?
No, I and others may take the same tack you mention here and come up with a different interpretation. That's the point. You think your interpretation is the correct one while others may have a different interpretation.

ripmeister
08-15-2018, 02:10 PM
Absolutely brilliant response.
Not really. This response was to something other than what I wrote.

ripmeister
08-15-2018, 02:11 PM
Of course, it is different. We have the framers original words. We have records of their debates. We have records of their newspaper articles. We have an enormous amount of information.

Why not just admit you are a tyrant wannabe and you find what is left of the Constitution a bit too constraining?
I'm anything but a tyrant wannabe.

Chris
08-15-2018, 02:26 PM
I said nothing about difficulty of understanding, simply differences in interpretation.

Murder is murder, isn't it? Where's the ambiguity?

Ethereal
08-15-2018, 02:53 PM
So who defines the intent?
The people who crafted it. And they were pretty clear about their intentions.

Ethereal
08-15-2018, 02:55 PM
Some of its clear, some not so clear. The General Welfare clause has already been cited. What exactly is a militia and who is a part of a militia?

The general welfare is a purpose to which the enumerated powers are to be exercised, not a power in and of itself.

A militia is a non-professional army of citizen soldiers. Any American capable of keeping and bearing arms is part of it.

ripmeister
08-15-2018, 03:10 PM
The people who crafted it. And they were pretty clear about their intentions.
That's debatable.

ripmeister
08-15-2018, 03:11 PM
Murder is murder, isn't it? Where's the ambiguity?

In this case there is none.

ripmeister
08-15-2018, 03:13 PM
Would like to continue but I gotta go chase that little white ball. I'll be back.

Ethereal
08-15-2018, 03:28 PM
That's debatable.
Well, they debated and discussed and wrote about the constitution pretty extensively. Their views on every section of the constitution are recorded in detail.

Chris
08-15-2018, 04:28 PM
In this case there is none.

Which was my point. Now, back to the Constitution, is there any ambiguity in the meaning of free speech?

Dr. Who
08-15-2018, 04:29 PM
You conflate the legitimate amendment process with amendment via judicial fiat. I can tell you do not like the Constitution. It continues to be a small obstacle to tyranny. Tyranny you support.

On one of my shelves, I have a book written about America's sacred documents. It is a book about the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Would you feel less threatened if everyone used "revered" instead of sacred?
Revered would be more appropriate.

Dr. Who
08-15-2018, 05:10 PM
That is gracious of you. I make an effort to write at a fifth-grade level. I want you to understand. I have a Masters degree and could write as profoundly foggily as you do. It takes more effort to keep it simple, or in your words to dumb it down.
If I were writing for elementary school students I would write at a fifth-grade level. I didn't use any words that an eighth grader shouldn't understand.

Chris
08-15-2018, 05:23 PM
If I were writing for elementary school students I would write at a fifth-grade level. I didn't use any words that an eighth grader shouldn't understand.

LOL, took your pompous prose from post #15 nd tested it at http://www.readabilityformulas.com/freetests/six-readability-formulas.php


Text Readability Consensus Calculator

Purpose: Our Text Readability Consensus Calculator uses 7 popular readability formulas to calculate the average grade level, reading age, and text difficulty of your sample text.


Your Results:

Your text: Absent a connotative contextual construction appro ...(show all text)


Flesch Reading Ease score: 12.1 (text scale)
Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: very difficult to read.
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]


Gunning Fog: 21.5 (text scale)
Gunning Fog scored your text: very difficult to read.
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]


Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 19.5
Grade level: College Graduate and above.
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]


The Coleman-Liau Index: 13
Grade level: college
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]


The SMOG Index: 17
Grade level: graduate college
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]


Automated Readability Index: 19.4
Grade level: College graduate
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]


Linsear Write Formula : 24.6
Grade level: College Graduate and above.
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]


No one has been fooled.

Dr. Who
08-15-2018, 05:28 PM
LOL, took your pompous prose from post #15 nd tested it at http://www.readabilityformulas.com/freetests/six-readability-formulas.php



No one has been fooled.
I explained what the term meant.

Cletus
08-15-2018, 06:19 PM
Revered would be more appropriate.

Why?

To real Americans, it is a sacred document.

MisterVeritis
08-15-2018, 06:22 PM
hat is gracious of you. I make an effort to write at a fifth-grade level. I want you to understand. I have a Masters degree and could write as profoundly foggily as you do. It takes more effort to keep it simple, or in your words to dumb it down.

If I were writing for elementary school students I would write at a fifth-grade level. I didn't use any words that an eighth grader shouldn't understand.
I know many people who write as if it is a badge of honor to be unintelligible. You are one of them.

Sergeant Gleed
08-15-2018, 11:31 PM
Contracts are not all simplistic. Many are highly complicated - some actually longer than the Constitution.

Most are longer than the Constitution.

What level of interpretation is required to make "shall not be infringed" into "some guns are more equal than others"?

Sergeant Gleed
08-15-2018, 11:37 PM
They have, but partisan paralysis has been afflicting the process for some years and there are many who don't even recognize the Amendments and consider them "sacrilege". They treat the original Constitution like it was the biblical commandments as handed down by God.


Really?

Name an American who doesn't recognize the Bill of Rights to be equal in importance to the original body of the document.

Was the violation of the baker's freedom of religion, when the state of Colorado punished him for exercising that freedom to say "no", more or less important than the violation of the baker's freedom from involuntary servitude protected under the 13th Amendment?

Where is it written in the body of the Constitution that government can force action between private parties?

Sergeant Gleed
08-15-2018, 11:39 PM
The Constitution was designed to be amended... not "interpreted" to make changes necessary to adapt to changing times. That is the ONLY way the document's meaning can be changed. The Supreme Court was never intended to be the final arbiter of what is or is not Constitutional. They lack the constitutional authority to "interpret" any clause of the constitution to mean anything other than what it actually says.



Not true, at all. The word "sacred" can have religious connotations, but it is not restricted to that. It also means "entitled to reverence and respect" and "highly valued and important" (Webster is your friend). So yes, the Constitution is indeed a "sacred" document, whether you like it or not.



It's the LAWS that are supposed to be interpreted, not the Constitution.

Sergeant Gleed
08-15-2018, 11:42 PM
The most egregious b astardization of the Constitution in my opinion is how the left has interpreted the meaning of the "provide for the general welfare" clause. Their interpretation has totally gutted the restrictions the Founder's placed on government intrusion into our lives.

They have decided the word "for" isn't supposed to be there.

Sergeant Gleed
08-15-2018, 11:50 PM
Oh, the Court was allowed to rule one time but not the other? Is that your argument?

The Court shouldn't have had an say in it. The Congress could have passed a law to enforce the Constitution. Either the Court can rule or it can't.
My argument was, as I recall, that Brown was somehow how necessary, according to whichever twit I was responding to, who believed that Brown was created as some kind of quantum particle production process, in a vacuum.

Brown would never had come before the court if the court's prior meddling in Plessy v Ferguson hadn't been heinously flawed.

The courts ruled, in violation of precedent and common sense, in Miller that the right to keep and bear arms was conditional upon the type of weapon, something blatantly absent in the Second Amendment. Furthermore, the ruling was that since sawed off shotguns were not useful in war, they weren't protected by the 2A....which is an utterly foolish thing for any judge to say in the 1930's, when such weapons were vastly useful for cleaning germans out of the trenches in WWI. From the bastard ruling of Miller we've seen all sorts of absurd violations of the 2A by the courts in the last 80 years.

Out of pure fascist imagination, the court decided that the murder of unborn children is a right, and 55,000,000 Americans have died by this "interpretation" of the Constitution.

Sergeant Gleed
08-15-2018, 11:52 PM
So who defines the intent?

The Founders, in the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and their letters and other published works at the time.

Certainly not some Puerto Rican lesbian proud of her Spanish speaking magic vagina.

Sergeant Gleed
08-15-2018, 11:59 PM
Free speech is free speech. Commerce is commerce. What's so difficult?

Commerce is COMMERCE.

Commerce IS NOT manufacturing and commerce IS NOT agriculture, yet it was to the Commerce Clause the fascists under FDR turned to regulate agriculture, and from there, manufacturing. The court ruled, even more oddly, that under the INTERSTATE Commerce Clause (ARticle I, Section 8), that a farmer could not sell his wheat IN HIS OWN STATE because the in-state sale of that wheat would affect the price of wheat sold in the state by other states, and thus Congress had the authority, under the ICC, to regulate IN-STATE sales as well as Interstate commerce.

Which is an interpretation that is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of stated intent, turning the Constitution on it's head.

"Shall not be infringed" becomes, "infringers'r'us".

"free exercise of religion" has become "bake the cake, bitch".

"Secure in their persons and papers" has become "TSA Strip Searching small girls and old ladies".

Sergeant Gleed
08-16-2018, 12:01 AM
Which are difficult to understand? Not asking which might be difficult to follow, just understand?

I always get hung up on the Eleventh Amendment, myself.

Sergeant Gleed
08-16-2018, 12:09 AM
Murder is murder, isn't it? Where's the ambiguity?

There's a man threatening to rape a child. He has a knife, he will cut her before he can be reached to grappled with.

He is shot, fatally and deliberately so, since in mind of the shooter a wounded man could still commit grievous harm with the blade.

The shooter had no affiliation with any state-organized law enforcement.

Was that "murder"?

Some will argue yes, because they're stupid, others will argue no, citing urgent need to defend the innocent against imminent danger.

Thus what needs to be interpreted is not the Commandment against murder, but the specific act to see if it is indeed murder or a justified homicide.

Naturally, one needs to have the definition of the word "murder" as it was originally used in the Commandment, to act as the arbiter of the deed.

But the Commandment itself wasn't subjected to interpretation.

Sergeant Gleed
08-16-2018, 12:10 AM
If I were writing for elementary school students I would write at a fifth-grade level. I didn't use any words that an eighth grader shouldn't understand.


You've NO experience with modern US eighth graders...or college graduates, even.

Sergeant Gleed
08-16-2018, 12:13 AM
Why?

To real Americans, it is a sacred document.

?

?


No.....I don't worship the Constitution.

Sorry, but it's an amazing document.

It's the document for model government....but not a perfect one.

It's the document that shaped American society and American success.

But it's a religious tract handed down to Joseph Smith or the Council of Nicea.

It's just damned good architecture.

Cletus
08-16-2018, 03:46 AM
?

?


No.....I don't worship the Constitution.

Not really relevant. You are suggesting the word "sacred" has only a religious connotation. Perhaps you should buy a dictionary and share it with Who.

Cletus
08-16-2018, 04:11 AM
When the Founders mutually pledged "to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor” There was no religious connotation. They were pledging that which they treasured most. Their honor was more important than their lives or their fortunes. It was that which defined them.

Chris
08-16-2018, 08:22 AM
I always get hung up on the Eleventh Amendment, myself.

It clarified Article III. It stated a citizen of one state cannot sue another state.

Captdon
08-16-2018, 09:15 AM
That's debatable.

How? They talked about it and wrote about it. You're flailing. The only thing debatable is whether you're ignorant or untruthful.

Chris
08-16-2018, 09:18 AM
I explained what the term meant.


Give us an example. Apply your approach, whatever it is, to a piece of constitutional text.

Chris
08-16-2018, 09:21 AM
Commerce is COMMERCE.

Commerce IS NOT manufacturing and commerce IS NOT agriculture, yet it was to the Commerce Clause the fascists under FDR turned to regulate agriculture, and from there, manufacturing. The court ruled, even more oddly, that under the INTERSTATE Commerce Clause (ARticle I, Section 8), that a farmer could not sell his wheat IN HIS OWN STATE because the in-state sale of that wheat would affect the price of wheat sold in the state by other states, and thus Congress had the authority, under the ICC, to regulate IN-STATE sales as well as Interstate commerce.

Which is an interpretation that is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of stated intent, turning the Constitution on it's head.

"Shall not be infringed" becomes, "infringers'r'us".

"free exercise of religion" has become "bake the cake, bitch".

"Secure in their persons and papers" has become "TSA Strip Searching small girls and old ladies".


Right, and it must be "commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."

But the Court has seen fit to redefine it as serving customers at a restaurant that gets some products out of state.

Captdon
08-16-2018, 09:28 AM
My argument was, as I recall, that Brown was somehow how necessary, according to whichever twit I was responding to, who believed that Brown was created as some kind of quantum particle production process, in a vacuum.

Brown would never had come before the court if the court's prior meddling in Plessy v Ferguson hadn't been heinously flawed.

The courts ruled, in violation of precedent and common sense, in Miller that the right to keep and bear arms was conditional upon the type of weapon, something blatantly absent in the Second Amendment. Furthermore, the ruling was that since sawed off shotguns were not useful in war, they weren't protected by the 2A....which is an utterly foolish thing for any judge to say in the 1930's, when such weapons were vastly useful for cleaning germans out of the trenches in WWI. From the $#@! ruling of Miller we've seen all sorts of absurd violations of the 2A by the courts in the last 80 years.

Out of pure fascist imagination, the court decided that the murder of unborn children is a right, and 55,000,000 Americans have died by this "interpretation" of the Constitution.

This word wall makes no sense at any level. You are jumping around like a drunken frog.

SCOTUS never had the right to decide what was constitutional to start with. Brown v Board of Education wasn't SCOTUS issue because of that. A federal law enforcing the Constitution would have taken care of the problem

That was what i was talking about. The rest of your post is junk. They shouldn't have ruled anything in Plessy v Ferguson. That's what you missed. It's also what they missed. There was nothing equal about separate and equal.

Congress got rid of that on its own. The Court orders were ignored. SC had segregated schools until 1970. That's 16 years after the Court banned them. It was Congress that got rid of them.

Captdon
08-16-2018, 09:34 AM
I always get hung up on the Eleventh Amendment, myself.


The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

You have to sue someone in the state where they reside. You can't sue me in any state but SC.

ripmeister
08-16-2018, 03:14 PM
How? They talked about it and wrote about it. You're flailing. The only thing debatable is whether you're ignorant or untruthful.

I am neither. You and others would seem to claim that you can determine original intent with full confidence. That's a good thing because if you can't then you can't make it the basis for interpretation. We'll go back and forth on this and come to no resolution because you make that claim and I'm a doubter of ones ability to truly know original intent. I tried to attach one of the best papers I've seen on this debate that lays out the pros and cons much better than I ever could but the file is too big. I'll try and find the link and send it that way later.

ripmeister
08-16-2018, 03:16 PM
Here you go.

https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2092&context=facpubs

Chris
08-16-2018, 03:25 PM
Here you go.

https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2092&context=facpubs

This quote pretty much captures it all:


This important debate came out of the academic closet in 1985, when Attorney General
Edwin Meese gave public addresses on constitutional jurisprudence. In one, after noting that
the new terms replaced the older ones of strict versus loose construction, he quipped,
"Under the old system the question was how to read the Constitution; under the new
approach, the question is whether to read the Constitution." He called for a return to a
"jurisprudence of original intention," (a clearer term for interpretivism). Acting on that
principle, he said the Justice Department stood prepared to challenge the incorporation
doctrine, according to which nearly all of the provisions of the original Bill of Rights have
been applied against the states under the fourteenth amendment. This drew from Justice
Brennan a defense of an activist approach to individual rights and a twentieth-century
reading of the Constitution. For Justice Brennan and his supporters, the choice is between
being ruled by the dead hand of the past or the living present; for Attorney General Meese
and his supporters, the choice is between courts that say what the law is, which is their job,
and courts that make law and policy, which is the job of legislatures.

MisterVeritis
08-16-2018, 03:28 PM
I am neither. You and others would seem to claim that you can determine original intent with full confidence. That's a good thing because if you can't then you can't make it the basis for interpretation. We'll go back and forth on this and come to no resolution because you make that claim and I'm a doubter of ones ability to truly know original intent. I tried to attach one of the best papers I've seen on this debate that lays out the pros and cons much better than I ever could but the file is too big. I'll try and find the link and send it that way later.
When in doubt side with the goal of individual liberty.

Dr. Who
08-16-2018, 04:45 PM
Not really relevant. You are suggesting the word "sacred" has only a religious connotation. Perhaps you should buy a dictionary and share it with Who.

The Latin root of the word is sacer, meaning holy. If people want to use it outside of its root meaning, that's on them, however to me it has an innate religious connotation. The word revered is more appropriate. Even venerable/venerate would work.

Ethereal
08-16-2018, 04:51 PM
I am neither. You and others would seem to claim that you can determine original intent with full confidence. That's a good thing because if you can't then you can't make it the basis for interpretation. We'll go back and forth on this and come to no resolution because you make that claim and I'm a doubter of ones ability to truly know original intent. I tried to attach one of the best papers I've seen on this debate that lays out the pros and cons much better than I ever could but the file is too big. I'll try and find the link and send it that way later.
When there are copious historical records that evince their intent, the confidence is warranted, no?

Cletus
08-16-2018, 05:04 PM
The Latin root of the word is sacer, meaning holy.

That might be significant if you lived in ancient Rome. Here... not so much.



If people want to use it outside of its root meaning, that's on them, however to me it has an innate religious connotation.

Its root meaning is not as important as its common usage is.


The word revered is more appropriate. Even venerable/venerate would work.

When you publish your own lexicon and it becomes a universally accepted reference on the definitions of words in the English language, I will take your opinion under consideration. Until then, the Constitution remains a "sacred" document.

Dr. Who
08-16-2018, 05:11 PM
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

You have to sue someone in the state where they reside. You can't sue me in any state but SC.
I believe that refers to SCOTUS' jurisdiction in matters involving lawsuits against a State (i.e. like a lawsuit against the State of South Carolina) brought by citizens of another State or subjects of another country. This is presumably because each State has common-law immunity from prosecution unless it consents to be sued. There is some debate (and conflicting SCOTUS case law) as to whether or not it applies when it involves federal laws or legislation.

Ethereal
08-16-2018, 05:20 PM
Its root meaning is not as important as its common usage is.

Isn't that the exact same argument used by the proponents of a "living" constitution?

Dr. Who
08-16-2018, 05:41 PM
That might be significant if you lived in ancient Rome. Here... not so much.




Its root meaning is not as important as its common usage is.



When you publish your own lexicon and it becomes a universally accepted reference on the definitions of words in the English language, I will take your opinion under consideration. Until then, the Constitution remains a "sacred" document.

It may or may not be commonly used otherwise in your experience, but I can't say that I have often heard it used outside of its religious context except sarcastically, in which case the criticism for the over the top reverence is implied. In fact, even in jest i.e. sacred cow, it still adheres to its original meaning. On the other hand, misused words have been known to work their way into dictionary definitions as nonstandard English.

Cletus
08-16-2018, 05:44 PM
Isn't that the exact same argument used by the proponents of a "living" constitution?

No, it isn't.

Think it through before you ask me to explain WHY it isn't.

Ethereal
08-16-2018, 05:45 PM
It may or may not be commonly used otherwise in your experience, but I can't say that I have often heard it used outside of its religious context except sarcastically, in which case the criticism for the over the top reverence is implied. In fact, even in jest i.e. sacred cow, it still adheres to its original meaning. On the other hand, misused words have been known to work their way into dictionary definitions as nonstandard English.
Sooooo, are you arguing that the original meaning of a term trumps its evolved meaning over time?

Dr. Who
08-16-2018, 05:46 PM
Give us an example. Apply your approach, whatever it is, to a piece of constitutional text.
I gave an example - what the Court did with respect to the Heller case and the 2nd Amendment. I've already explained the process. I am not going to do so again. Read back the thread.

Cletus
08-16-2018, 05:49 PM
It may or may not be commonly used otherwise in your experience, but I can't say that I have often heard it used outside of its religious context except sarcastically, in which case the criticism for the over the top reverence is implied. In fact, even in jest i.e. sacred cow, it still adheres to its original meaning. On the other hand, misused words have been known to work their way into dictionary definitions as nonstandard English.

So, Jefferson misused the word when he wrote of "sacred honor" and the Signers also misused it when they concurred. Phrases like "sacred trust" or "sacred bond" are also misapplications of the word.

No, they are not.

Just admit you jumped the gun on something you didn't fully understand, thank me for educating you, and move on.

Ethereal
08-16-2018, 05:52 PM
No, it isn't.

Think it through before you ask me to explain WHY it isn't.
Proponents of a living constitution claim that the evolved meaning of a word is more important than the original meaning of a word.

You said the root meaning of the word "sacred" is not as important as its common usage.

Those are the basically the same positions, only applied in different contexts.

Dr. Who
08-16-2018, 05:52 PM
Sooooo, are you arguing that the original meaning of a term trumps its evolved meaning over time?
Probably not to anyone whose understanding of the English language did not involve learning the etymology of words.

Ethereal
08-16-2018, 05:54 PM
So, Jefferson misused the word when he wrote of "sacred honor" and the Signers also misused it when they concurred. Phrases like "sacred trust" or "sacred bond" are also misapplications of the word.

No, they are not.

Just admit you jumped the gun on something you didn't fully understand, thank me for educating you, and move on.

How do you know Jefferson's use of the word "sacred" did not possess a religious connotation of some sort?

Ethereal
08-16-2018, 05:55 PM
Probably not to anyone whose understanding of the English language did not involve learning the etymology of words.

So if we take your logic and apply it to, say, the US Constitution, what would that imply?

Captdon
08-16-2018, 06:07 PM
Here you go.

https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2092&context=facpubs

The article or essay starts with the idea that original intent is can't be prove unless I misread it.
If Madison and Franklin say something means a certain thing they should know. They were there for the writing and the debate. I don't know how what the men there can be said to be wrong. If there was something they didn't define then you have an argument. I don't see one.

No, we are never going to agree on this. Nothing personal but I don't buy present day interpretation..

Dr. Who
08-16-2018, 06:16 PM
So, Jefferson misused the word when he wrote of "sacred honor" and the Signers also misused it when they concurred. Phrases like "sacred trust" or "sacred bond" are also misapplications of the word.

No, they are not.

Just admit you jumped the gun on something you didn't fully understand, thank me for educating you, and move on.
The word honor has significant historical association with the act of worship and morality. The word honest derives from the same root. Thus, in the circumstances, sacred is not being misused as an adjective.

Cletus
08-16-2018, 06:22 PM
Proponents of a living constitution claim that the evolved meaning of a word is more important than the original meaning of a word.

You said the root meaning of the word "sacred" is not as important as its common usage.

Those are the basically the same positions, only applied in different contexts.


It is not the same position. Who is suggesting that a word's root in another language determines a word's meaning and that because a word meant something in a long dead language, it's modern derivative has the same meaning.

What I attempted to convey is that what "sacer" may have meant in Latin does not determine what the word "sacred" means today. Nor does it mean there is only one recognized definition of the word. That is not even close to the argument put forth by certain people that the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution should be determined by the way certain words in the document are used today. Their intent is determined by what the words meant at the time they were written.

I believe you, yourself have put forth that same argument.

Cletus
08-16-2018, 06:24 PM
The word honor has significant historical association with the act of worship and morality. The word honest derives from the same root. Thus, in the circumstances, sacred is not being misused as an adjective.

You and Major Lambda should hook up. You both try WAY too hard.

Chris
08-16-2018, 07:07 PM
I gave an example - what the Court did with respect to the Heller case and the 2nd Amendment. I've already explained the process. I am not going to do so again. Read back the thread.

This is all you had to say about that: "Consider the process undertaken by SCOTUS in the Heller decision and the research into the Federalist papers and other contemporary documents. The Court examined the purpose behind the words and applied it to the case at hand."

But their doing that is precisely what you argue against. You argued: "Principles may be timeless, but words are not. Their literal meanings change as the context in which they are used, changes. Some words completely disappear from the modern dialect." That defines your approach.

What I'm asking you to do is take your approach--"Absent a connotative contextual construction approach to Constitutional interpretation and multiple amendments, it would have long ago, under a hyperliteral approach, been confined to the dustbin of time as an anachronistic document."--and apply it to the Heller case and the second amendment. Show us how the words have changed so much as to be outdated.

What's odd, however, is 10 pages later, you've completely reversed your position to the roots of words determine their meaning.

Make some sense.

Chris
08-16-2018, 07:13 PM
It is not the same position. Who is suggesting that a word's root in another language determines a word's meaning and that because a word meant something in a long dead language, it's modern derivative has the same meaning.

What I attempted to convey is that what "sacer" may have meant in Latin does not determine what the word "sacred" means today. Nor does it mean there is only one recognized definition of the word. That is not even close to the argument put forth by certain people that the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution should be determined by the way certain words in the document are used today. Their intent is determined by what the words meant at the time they were written.

I believe you, yourself have put forth that same argument.


I was reading the other day about how the meaning of democracy has changed from its roots in ancient Greek politics to its modern liberal meaning, and how the Greeks are now denigrated because their meaning doesn't fit the modern one.


Words mean what those who used them to negotiate meaning in the context of a time and place. Thus the need for an orginalist/textualist reading applied to taoday's events, rather than anachronistically applying today's meanings onto the words of the past.

Dr. Who
08-16-2018, 07:15 PM
So if we take your logic and apply it to, say, the US Constitution, what would that imply?
I have never taken umbrage with the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution, but the full meaning/intent of the clauses and/or the anachronisms in, for example, the 2nd Amendment. I'm afraid I don't buy the assertion that the punctuation in the 2nd results in a meaning other than what it seems. I've read 18th-century literature and the punctuation is substantially the same as it is today.

As to the framers, I expect that they understood the etymology of words more than most people today.

Cletus
08-16-2018, 07:20 PM
I was reading the other day about how the meaning of democracy has changed from its roots in ancient Greek politics to its modern liberal meaning, and how the Greeks are now denigrated because their meaning doesn't fit the modern one.


Words mean what those who used them to negotiate meaning in the context of a time and place. Thus the need for an orginalist/textualist reading applied to today's events, rather than anachronistically applying today's meanings onto the words of the past.

Shot.
Splash.
Target destroyed.

You nailed it.

Mister D
08-16-2018, 07:27 PM
I was reading the other day about how the meaning of democracy has changed from its roots in ancient Greek politics to its modern liberal meaning, and how the Greeks are now denigrated because their meaning doesn't fit the modern one.


Words mean what those who used them to negotiate meaning in the context of a time and place. Thus the need for an orginalist/textualist reading applied to taoday's events, rather than anachronistically applying today's meanings onto the words of the past.

This is true. Surely the men who coined the term have a better understanding of what democracy means. Perhaps liberals should adopt a new term.

Dr. Who
08-16-2018, 07:39 PM
This is all you had to say about that: "Consider the process undertaken by SCOTUS in the Heller decision and the research into the Federalist papers and other contemporary documents. The Court examined the purpose behind the words and applied it to the case at hand."

But their doing that is precisely what you argue against. You argued: "Principles may be timeless, but words are not. Their literal meanings change as the context in which they are used, changes. Some words completely disappear from the modern dialect." That defines your approach.

What I'm asking you to do is take your approach--"Absent a connotative contextual construction approach to Constitutional interpretation and multiple amendments, it would have long ago, under a hyperliteral approach, been confined to the dustbin of time as an anachronistic document."--and apply it to the Heller case and the second amendment. Show us how the words have changed so much as to be outdated.

What's odd, however, is 10 pages later, you've completely reversed your position to the roots of words determine their meaning.

Make some sense.
Not at all. Some words do change in meaning radically or the context in which they are used changes. I am not criticising the Court's process in Heller. They examined the historical context of the words and the concepts. I don't necessarily agree with all of their conclusions. That doesn't change the fact that I do believe that with archaic documents that have to be applied in a modern context, that you have to examine the purpose behind the words, because often the context to which they are being applied did not exist when the words were penned.

Captdon
08-16-2018, 07:43 PM
I believe that refers to SCOTUS' jurisdiction in matters involving lawsuits against a State (i.e. like a lawsuit against the State of South Carolina) brought by citizens of another State or subjects of another country. This is presumably because each State has common-law immunity from prosecution unless it consents to be sued. There is some debate (and conflicting SCOTUS case law) as to whether or not it applies when it involves federal laws or legislation.


The text is pretty clear and has been since it was adopted.

Ethereal
08-16-2018, 07:44 PM
I have never taken umbrage with the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution, but the full meaning/intent of the clauses and/or the anachronisms in, for example, the 2nd Amendment. I'm afraid I don't buy the assertion that the punctuation in the 2nd results in a meaning other than what it seems. I've read 18th-century literature and the punctuation is substantially the same as it is today.

As to the framers, I expect that they understood the etymology of words more than most people today.

The prefatory clause in no way modifies or limits the operative clause. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed means exactly what it says.

Common Sense
08-16-2018, 07:48 PM
If the intention of the second amendment was expressed after the comma, why did they even include the first portion?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

Chris
08-16-2018, 07:50 PM
I have never taken umbrage with the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution, but the full meaning/intent of the clauses and/or the anachronisms in, for example, the 2nd Amendment. I'm afraid I don't buy the assertion that the punctuation in the 2nd results in a meaning other than what it seems. I've read 18th-century literature and the punctuation is substantially the same as it is today.

As to the framers, I expect that they understood the etymology of words more than most people today.



That makes no sense: "anachronisms in, for example, the 2nd Amendment." There are none. The anachronisms are found in applying modern meanings to the words and clauses of the text of the 2nd amendment. Not the other way around.

Chris
08-16-2018, 07:53 PM
If the intention of the second amendment was expressed after the comma, why did they even include the first portion?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...


The nominative absolute is there as reason for even needing to include the right to keep and bear arms as an amendment. Otherwise, the natural and normal right went without saying.

Chris
08-16-2018, 07:55 PM
https://i.snag.gy/osN62p.jpg

Captdon
08-16-2018, 07:57 PM
How can anyone say the meaning of a word in 1789 changes with time and that makes the intent different. Intent doesn't change. Intent isn't hard to figure out.

We're not talking about a text book. The constitution is a small document. Excuse the plain wording. I don't have a BA. or BS.

Ethereal
08-16-2018, 08:06 PM
If the intention of the second amendment was expressed after the comma, why did they even include the first portion?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

I did not say it was "the" intent. Both clauses express an intent of some sort.

Dr. Who
08-16-2018, 08:07 PM
That makes no sense: "anachronisms in, for example, the 2nd Amendment." There are none. The anachronisms are found in applying modern meanings to the words and clauses of the text of the 2nd amendment. Not the other way around.
Not anachronistic words but anachronistic concepts.

Dr. Who
08-16-2018, 08:09 PM
https://i.snag.gy/osN62p.jpg
This is the grammatical hopscotch with which I take issue.

Chris
08-16-2018, 08:13 PM
This is the grammatical hopscotch with which I take issue.

Why?

Such constructions are not unusual. "The weather being rainy, we decided to postpone the trip." @ http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm

And perfectly understandable...at an 8th-grade reading level.

Chloe
08-16-2018, 08:13 PM
How many years or centuries do you think the founders meant for the constitution as written then to apply to the future? It would be like us today writing a document and expecting the context to apply towards the next 250+ years. We don't even know what the next hundred years will hold let alone another 240+ years. Seems like it would need to evolve in some way to stay relevant.

Captdon
08-16-2018, 08:14 PM
If the intention of the second amendment was expressed after the comma, why did they even include the first portion?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

The intent was to prevent both the federal and state governments from regulating all of the militia's. All of the founders said that the militia was "all the people." The people have the right to keep and bear arms without interference from federal or state controls.( that has gone by the wayside)

There were state militia's and city militia's and frontier militia's. In 1789 anything west of the Appalachians was the frontier. They had to defend themselves. These militia's were controlled by the people in them.

It hasn't gone unchecked. There aren't state militia's anymore that I know off. The National Guard might be a militia but I don''t think it is. There are militia's in some states that are watched by the FBI but are legal.

Chris
08-16-2018, 08:15 PM
Not anachronistic words but anachronistic concepts.

Indeed, to try an apply today's concepts to yesteryear's is anachronism.

You still have yet to offer any concrete example.

Ethereal
08-16-2018, 08:16 PM
How many years or centuries do you think the founders meant for the constitution as written then to apply to in the future? It would be like us today writing a document and expecting the context to apply towards the next 250+ years. We don't even know what the next hundred years will hold let alone another 240+ years. Seems like it would need to evolve in some way to stay relevant.

That's why they included the amendment process. They never intended for the constitution to evolve through judicial interpretation or administrative FIAT.

Chris
08-16-2018, 08:16 PM
How many years or centuries do you think the founders meant for the constitution as written then to apply to the future? It would be like us today writing a document and expecting the context to apply towards the next 250+ years. We don't even know what the next hundred years will hold let alone another 240+ years. Seems like it would need to evolve in some way to stay relevant.

What part of the Constitution gives you trouble?

Chloe
08-16-2018, 08:19 PM
What part of the Constitution gives you trouble?
I don't have an answer to that.

Captdon
08-16-2018, 08:23 PM
How many years or centuries do you think the founders meant for the constitution as written then to apply to the future? It would be like us today writing a document and expecting the context to apply towards the next 250+ years. We don't even know what the next hundred years will hold let alone another 240+ years. Seems like it would need to evolve in some way to stay relevant.

It can be changed by Amendment. It has been changed by amending it. You go by present meaning and not the intent you have no Constitution.

We can also call a convention to amend it. We could probably write a new one if 38 states accept that. We can write a new one by one amendment. What we don't need is liberal interpreting what they want it to mean.

Chris
08-16-2018, 08:23 PM
I don't have an answer to that.

Well, the Constitution can change, evolve, grow, if the people want to amend it, there's a process to built into it.

Captdon
08-16-2018, 08:28 PM
Why do people have to write in college English to make their points on a forum? If I'm supposed to be impressed, I'm not. If I'm supposed to read it two or three times, it's a big success. The founders didn't sit around the Convention hall saying, "Okay. Let's make this as difficult to read as possible. That will keep people busy."

MisterVeritis
08-16-2018, 08:32 PM
How many years or centuries do you think the founders meant for the constitution as written then to apply to the future? It would be like us today writing a document and expecting the context to apply towards the next 250+ years. We don't even know what the next hundred years will hold let alone another 240+ years. Seems like it would need to evolve in some way to stay relevant.
Allow me to point you to Article V of the US Constitution. Change whatever you want to change.

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.


Easy Peasy.

Dr. Who
08-16-2018, 08:36 PM
The prefatory clause in no way modifies or limits the operative clause. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed means exactly what it says.

The prefatory clause is wholly consistent with the prohibition against a standing army and the need for a domestic militia of the people, who thus must necessarily keep and bear arms. Transpose the entire two sentences to any 18th century book and that is exactly how they would be interpreted both now and in the 18th century - in conjunction. However, reading them in conjunction would produce an interpretation that would call into question the ordinary right to bear arms, particularly in view of the fact that there is now a standing army and no particular need for domestic militia organically organized from the males members of American communities. Riots in the streets might ensue if such an interpretation were reached by the Court.

MisterVeritis
08-16-2018, 08:45 PM
The prefatory clause is wholly consistent with the prohibition against a standing army and the need for a domestic militia of the people, who thus must necessarily keep and bear arms. Transpose the entire two sentences to any 18th century book and that is exactly how they would be interpreted both now and in the 18th century - in conjunction. However, reading them in conjunction would produce an interpretation that would call into question the ordinary right to bear arms, particularly in view of the fact that there is now a standing army and no particular need for domestic militia organically organized from the males members of American communities. Riots in the streets might ensue if such an interpretation were reached by the Court.
The State in the Second Amendment is not the federal government. The State means individual states.

"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."

A standing army is a danger to a free state. An armed populace is the only protection a State has. Therefor the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The State, by necessity must be secure. Security of the free State depends on a militia able to perform its function. It's function is to provide security to the free State.

Chris
08-16-2018, 08:46 PM
The prefatory clause is wholly consistent with the prohibition against a standing army and the need for a domestic militia of the people, who thus must necessarily keep and bear arms. Transpose the entire two sentences to any 18th century book and that is exactly how they would be interpreted both now and in the 18th century - in conjunction. However, reading them in conjunction would produce an interpretation that would call into question the ordinary right to bear arms, particularly in view of the fact that there is now a standing army and no particular need for domestic militia organically organized from the males members of American communities. Riots in the streets might ensue if such an interpretation were reached by the Court.

That's because the nominative absolute does not intend conjuction. You want the clause to mean something other than what it does and so you force an anachronistic, no, wholly incompatible meaning onto it. The confusion lies not in the Constitution but in you trying to reduce everything to fit your agenda.

All of which is surprising when you preface your confusion with clarity of intepretation: "The prefatory clause is wholly consistent with the prohibition against a standing army and the need for a domestic militia of the people, who thus must necessarily keep and bear arms. "

Peter1469
08-16-2018, 08:53 PM
If the intention of the second amendment was expressed after the comma, why did they even include the first portion?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...
Because then the Militia was all able bodied men, typically between the ages of 15 and 45- some states differed in the ages.

Dr. Who
08-16-2018, 08:55 PM
Why?

Such constructions are not unusual. "The weather being rainy, we decided to postpone the trip." @ http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm

And perfectly understandable...at an 8th-grade reading level.

The second part of that sentence actually relates to the first. Even if you stated, " The weather being rainy, the mountain roads were dangerous. We decided to postpone the trip. " - you would not interpret the cancellation of the trip as being unrelated to the weather.

Ethereal
08-16-2018, 08:56 PM
The prefatory clause is wholly consistent with the prohibition against a standing army and the need for a domestic militia of the people, who thus must necessarily keep and bear arms. Transpose the entire two sentences to any 18th century book and that is exactly how they would be interpreted both now and in the 18th century - in conjunction. However, reading them in conjunction would produce an interpretation that would call into question the ordinary right to bear arms, particularly in view of the fact that there is now a standing army and no particular need for domestic militia organically organized from the males members of American communities. Riots in the streets might ensue if such an interpretation were reached by the Court.

The US does not have a standing army though. Appropriations for the military must be renewed every two years.

But even if the US did have a standing army, it would not render the militia unnecessary. Indeed, Hamilton said that a militia is the "best possible security against [a standing army], if it should exist."

In other words, the emergence of a standing army would only make the need for a large body of armed citizens more urgent.

Peter1469
08-16-2018, 08:56 PM
How many years or centuries do you think the founders meant for the constitution as written then to apply to the future? It would be like us today writing a document and expecting the context to apply towards the next 250+ years. We don't even know what the next hundred years will hold let alone another 240+ years. Seems like it would need to evolve in some way to stay relevant.
It was written to limit federal governmental power. I think that should last forever.

Peter1469
08-16-2018, 08:58 PM
The intent was to prevent both the federal and state governments from regulating all of the militia's. All of the founders said that the militia was "all the people." The people have the right to keep and bear arms without interference from federal or state controls.( that has gone by the wayside)

There were state militia's and city militia's and frontier militia's. In 1789 anything west of the Appalachians was the frontier. They had to defend themselves. These militia's were controlled by the people in them.

It hasn't gone unchecked. There aren't state militia's anymore that I know off. The National Guard might be a militia but I don''t think it is. There are militia's in some states that are watched by the FBI but are legal.

SCOTUS long ago ruled that the National Guard is not the militia. Virginia has a militia.

Dr. Who
08-16-2018, 09:14 PM
The State in the Second Amendment is not the federal government. The State means individual states.

"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."

A standing army is a danger to a free state. An armed populace is the only protection a State has. Therefor the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The State, by necessity must be secure. Security of the free State depends on a militia able to perform its function. It's function is to provide security to the free State.

Except for the fact that a well-regulated Militia was only a necessity in a State without a dreaded standing army. The existence of a standing army renders the need for a militia to secure the State redundant, and also arguably, the contingent unfettered right of the People to keep and bear Arms.

Dr. Who
08-16-2018, 09:36 PM
The US does not have a standing army though. Appropriations for the military must be renewed every two years.

But even if the US did have a standing army, it would not render the militia unnecessary. Indeed, Hamilton said that a militia is the "best possible security against [a standing army], if it should exist."

In other words, the emergence of a standing army would only make the need for a large body of armed citizens more urgent.

The Constitution defines only one crime: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" - Article III, Section 3. That would seem to indicate that the Constitution was not granting permission or creating a contingency plan for a violent coup d'etat. It does provide for elections as a democratic method of purging bad or tyrannical governments.

Chris
08-16-2018, 09:43 PM
The second part of that sentence actually relates to the first. Even if you stated, " The weather being rainy, the mountain roads were dangerous. We decided to postpone the trip. " - you would not interpret the cancellation of the trip as being unrelated to the weather.

Already explained, the nominative absolute give reason for the amendment being there. The right to keep and bear arms is natural, normal, and as such it was unnecessary to mention...other than as related to the protection of a free state from a tyranical government that might infringe upon on rights such as free speech. It gives reason for it, without modifying it.

Chris
08-16-2018, 09:46 PM
Except for the fact that a well-regulated Militia was only a necessity in a State without a dreaded standing army. The existence of a standing army renders the need for a militia to secure the State redundant, and also arguably, the contingent unfettered right of the People to keep and bear Arms.

What proctection is there for the state from the federal army?

By your interpretation, the first Congress added the 2nd just to say there was no need for the right to keep and bear arms. But that is an absurdly stupid reading. The amendment says the right "shall not be infringed."

Sergeant Gleed
08-16-2018, 11:12 PM
When the Founders mutually pledged "to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor” There was no religious connotation. They were pledging that which they treasured most. Their honor was more important than their lives or their fortunes. It was that which defined them.

Actually, it had a religious connotation in that context among those men.

They were deists, if not devout members of a church.

None of them were atheists.

Cletus
08-16-2018, 11:22 PM
Actually, it had a religious connotation in that context among those men.

They were deists, if not devout members of a church.

None of them were atheists.

The fact that you are not an atheist doesn't mean everything has a religious connotation.

Sergeant Gleed
08-16-2018, 11:24 PM
This word wall makes no sense at any level.

That's because the writer is above you.



SCOTUS never had the right to decide what was constitutional to start with.

Absolutely irrelevant since NO Congress has attempted to address the usurpation of Marbury v Madison.

The Court rules and nine unelected men in black dresses not only overturn law upon whatever whim seizes them, but actively write NEW law, such as when Chief Just Us Roberts decided that there were no limits to the power to tax ceded to Congress in Article I, Section 8, so obviously the MessiahCare bill was incorrect in calling the mandate penalties a "fine", it must mean it's a "tax", and thus was MessiahCare placed in violation of Article I, Section 7, Clause 1, the Originations Clause.

That enough words for ya, pal?


Brown v Board of Education wasn't SCOTUS issue because of that. A federal law enforcing the Constitution would have taken care of the problem.

You've NO IDEA how government really works, do you?

So naïve.


That was what i was talking about. The rest of your post is junk. They shouldn't have ruled anything in Plessy v Ferguson. That's what you missed. It's also what they missed. There was nothing equal about separate and equal.

It doesn't fucking matter what they "should have" done, boy.

What matters is what they DID do.

Do you usually hop right into the deep end of the pool, only to discover there's no water to float your boat?


Congress got rid of that on its own. The Court orders were ignored. SC had segregated schools until 1970. That's 16 years after the Court banned them. It was Congress that got rid of them.
Wow! You mean the Democrats wouldn't obey the courts? THAT'S never happened before. How shocking it must have been!

I bet your flabbergasted that Colorado is seeking to punish the Bake The Cake no-baker with another pervert demanding he..BAKE THE CAKE, aren't ya?

Sergeant Gleed
08-16-2018, 11:25 PM
The fact that you are not an atheist doesn't mean everything has a religious connotation.

Who said I wasn't an atheist?


But THEY weren't atheists, oh no.

Try to keep up, okay? The conveyor belt only goes faster.

Sergeant Gleed
08-16-2018, 11:33 PM
This is true. Surely the men who coined the term have a better understanding of what democracy means. Perhaps liberals should adopt a new term.

Who, the Greeks?


As for adopting a new term, appropriate to their desires, they hate the word "fascism", but only because they are fascists.

Sergeant Gleed
08-16-2018, 11:35 PM
If the intention of the second amendment was expressed after the comma, why did they even include the first portion?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...


To explain why the operative clause was necessary.

Sergeant Gleed
08-16-2018, 11:38 PM
I did not say it was "the" intent. Both clauses express an intent of some sort.

No, they don't.

The prefatory clause is an EXPLANATION.

The operative clause is a COMMAND.

Sergeant Gleed
08-16-2018, 11:39 PM
Not anachronistic words but anachronistic concepts.

What's anachronistic about the right of men to carry weapons?

Sergeant Gleed
08-16-2018, 11:46 PM
How many years or centuries do you think the founders meant for the constitution as written then to apply to the future? It would be like us today writing a document and expecting the context to apply towards the next 250+ years. We don't even know what the next hundred years will hold let alone another 240+ years. Seems like it would need to evolve in some way to stay relevant.

They expected to last ALL of the future centuries, until it was properly amended by the procedures specified.

Constitutional "evolution" is done by...the Amendment process.

And ONLY by the Amendment process.


List the Amendment that rescinded man's right to be armed against tyranny.

List the Amendment that granted Congress the power to fund education. Or healthcare. Or retirements.

List the Amendment that granted THE COURT the power to overturn the right of the states to make their own decisions regarding the legality of infanticide.

Cletus
08-16-2018, 11:49 PM
Who said I wasn't an atheist?

What am I talking to here? It was a generic "you". Let me make it simple for you. The fact that SOMEONE is not an atheist does not mean that everything has a religious connotation for that person.

Did that make it easier for you?

The context does not give any indication of a religious connotation to Jefferson's words. In fact, the opposite is true. Jefferson, and the Signers who concurred, were prioritizing. As important to them as their lives and fortunes may have been, they placed their honor above all. The text has been picked apart and analyzed by historians and linguists for two centuries and you will not fine one serious scholar who sees anything other than a personal value statement. There is no deity connection.

Your smart assed little comments can't disguise the fact that you are not much brighter than the rodents to whom you like to compare your political opposition.

Sergeant Gleed
08-16-2018, 11:52 PM
The intent was to prevent both the federal and state governments from regulating all of the militia's. All of the founders said that the militia was "all the people." The people have the right to keep and bear arms without interference from federal or state controls.( that has gone by the wayside)

There were state militia's and city militia's and frontier militia's. In 1789 anything west of the Appalachians was the frontier. They had to defend themselves. These militia's were controlled by the people in them.

It hasn't gone unchecked. There aren't state militia's anymore that I know off. The National Guard might be a militia but I don''t think it is. There are militia's in some states that are watched by the FBI but are legal.


The INTENT of the Second Amendment was to prevent the government from doing what we fought the Battle of Concorde to stop, the seizing of our weapons by a tyrannical government.

The 2A wasn't about letting the men on the frontiers keep their arms. It was about having the arms to hand when the local governments got "uppity".

I believe it's Federalist 29 that explains this, but I can never keep the numbers straight.

Sergeant Gleed
08-16-2018, 11:52 PM
What am I talking to here?

God.


So I KNOW when the word was meant as a religious reference.


Got any difficult questions?

Cletus
08-16-2018, 11:58 PM
Well, I was right.

We have another one whose shoe size is larger than his IQ.

Sergeant Gleed
08-17-2018, 12:05 AM
Well, I was right.

We have another one whose shoe size is larger than his IQ.


Let me tell you, it's a real bitch buying custom size 199 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE shoes.

How are your size 11s?

Cletus
08-17-2018, 02:05 AM
Let me tell you, it's a real bitch buying custom size 199 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE shoes.

How are your size 11s?

You just keep proving my point.

MisterVeritis
08-17-2018, 03:43 AM
Except for the fact that a well-regulated Militia was only a necessity in a State without a dreaded standing army. The existence of a standing army renders the need for a militia to secure the State redundant, and also arguably, the contingent unfettered right of the People to keep and bear Arms.
You err.

Peter1469
08-17-2018, 04:42 AM
They expected to last ALL of the future centuries, until it was properly amended by the procedures specified.

Constitutional "evolution" is done by...the Amendment process.

And ONLY by the Amendment process.


List the Amendment that rescinded man's right to be armed against tyranny.

List the Amendment that granted Congress the power to fund education. Or healthcare. Or retirements.

List the Amendment that granted THE COURT the power to overturn the right of the states to make their own decisions regarding the legality of infanticide.
There are two processes to change the Constitution: the Amendment Process and the Convention Process.

ripmeister
08-17-2018, 02:44 PM
When there are copious historical records that evince their intent, the confidence is warranted, no?
I guess that depends on whether you thing the documentary evidence is reliable. Take Madisons notes for example. As I recall there were some contradictions throughout so which do you accept, or is it not as black and white as some would make it out to be?

ripmeister
08-17-2018, 02:46 PM
This quote pretty much captures it all:
Yes, this captures one point of view. This paper does a good job of showing the different points of view revealing that its not a slam dunk for either side of the argument.

Dr. Who
08-17-2018, 02:51 PM
That's because the nominative absolute does not intend conjuction. You want the clause to mean something other than what it does and so you force an anachronistic, no, wholly incompatible meaning onto it. The confusion lies not in the Constitution but in you trying to reduce everything to fit your agenda.

All of which is surprising when you preface your confusion with clarity of intepretation: "The prefatory clause is wholly consistent with the prohibition against a standing army and the need for a domestic militia of the people, who thus must necessarily keep and bear arms. "
Or, conversely, those who don't want to read it according to the basic rules of English language construction, even in the 18th century, go to extraordinary lengths to imply, (in order to justify a preconceived interpretation), a uniquely poor and misleading sentence structure, which is curiously not repeated elsewhere in the Constitution.

Dr. Who
08-17-2018, 02:56 PM
What's anachronistic about the right of men to carry weapons?
Militias.

Chris
08-17-2018, 02:56 PM
Or, conversely, those who don't want to read it according to the basic rules of English language construction, even in the 18th century, go to extraordinary lengths to imply, (in order to justify a preconceived interpretation), a uniquely poor and misleading sentence structure, which is curiously not repeated elsewhere in the Constitution.

Yea, let's blame it on those who wrote the amendment. Or, no, let's blame it on a perfectly normal sentence structure. Or, wait, it's used only once! My God, you're getting desperate.

Chris
08-17-2018, 02:58 PM
Yes, this captures one point of view. This paper does a good job of showing the different points of view revealing that its not a slam dunk for either side of the argument.

It suggests an alternative which, much like yours and Who's, is not substantial.

Chris
08-17-2018, 03:03 PM
Militias.

The right is not contingent on militias. Forming militias against a tyrannical government was only one reason we have the right to keep and bear arms.

What, do you think the BoR lists all possible rights? Madison had collected 100s of requests to include various rights. He included only those political rights that needed protection from government intrusion. He didn't even want to do that much for fear someone in the future would think those are all the rights the people have.

ripmeister
08-17-2018, 03:03 PM
It suggests an alternative which, much like yours and Who's, is not substantial.

That's your opinion. Why is it not substantial in your opinion?

Chris
08-17-2018, 03:06 PM
That's your opinion. Why is it not substantial in your opinion?

Because it's wishful thinking.

I saw nothing in the paper offering a reasonable argument against originalism/textualism.

Did you?

ripmeister
08-17-2018, 03:12 PM
Because it's wishful thinking.

I saw nothing in the paper offering a reasonable argument against originalism/textualism.

Did you?

Yes I thought there were some good points on original intent and whether it can be determined with any confidence because if you can't determine it with confidence then you can't make it the basis for interpretation.
Another point made that I found interesting was the contention that the Framers accepted Natural Law, rights that were not explicitly in the Constitution. Was that omission intentional or was it just assumed? How can one be sure?

Peter1469
08-17-2018, 03:17 PM
I guess that depends on whether you thing the documentary evidence is reliable. Take Madisons notes for example. As I recall there were some contradictions throughout so which do you accept, or is it not as black and white as some would make it out to be?

I think you go with the written text first, then look at contemporaneous documents if needed, then if you still don't have a satisfactory answer you do the best that you can. I am against using modern meanings and concepts to rule on a Constitutional issue.

Peter1469
08-17-2018, 03:20 PM
Yes I thought there were some good points on original intent and whether it can be determined with any confidence because if you can't determine it with confidence then you can't make it the basis for interpretation.
Another point made that I found interesting was the contention that the Framers accepted Natural Law, rights that were not explicitly in the Constitution. Was that omission intentional or was it just assumed? How can one be sure?
The Constitution, and the Declaration before it, are expressions of natural law.

ripmeister
08-17-2018, 03:21 PM
I think you go with the written text first, then look at contemporaneous documents if needed, then if you still don't have a satisfactory answer you do the best that you can. I am against using modern meanings and concepts to rule on a Constitutional issue.
And that is fine. I'm no legal scholar as I'm sure is quite apparent but since becoming aware of this debate from the time of Bork I find it to be an interesting conundrum, that is, how do we gauge intent. I don't think its as simple or black and white as some would make it out to be.

ripmeister
08-17-2018, 03:24 PM
The Constitution, and the Declaration before it, are expressions of natural law.
Yes, but according to the paper there are no explicit references to such. It is simply assumed. So the question then is how does that relate to intent and our interpretation of it especially if you agree with the assumptions.

Chris
08-17-2018, 03:28 PM
Yes I thought there were some good points on original intent and whether it can be determined with any confidence because if you can't determine it with confidence then you can't make it the basis for interpretation.
Another point made that I found interesting was the contention that the Framers accepted Natural Law, rights that were not explicitly in the Constitution. Was that omission intentional or was it just assumed? How can one be sure?


But what were those points you found compelling?

The Constitution is a political document. The Declaration a moral one, infused with natural law and rights.

Peter1469
08-17-2018, 03:36 PM
And that is fine. I'm no legal scholar as I'm sure is quite apparent but since becoming aware of this debate from the time of Bork I find it to be an interesting conundrum, that is, how do we gauge intent. I don't think its as simple or black and white as some would make it out to be.
Intent is hard to figure out because much of the Constitution was made by compromise. The odd wording of the 2nd Amendment is one example.

Many Constitutional issues can be solved by relying on the written text alone. But then there are issues that are tough. Then the focus should be trying your best to look for intent without tainting the issue with what you think would work better today- SCOTUS has often said in opinions that the legislature makes the laws and can get the ball rolling to amend the Constitution if necessary. SCOTUS can't do that. No judge can.

ripmeister
08-17-2018, 03:38 PM
But what were those points you found compelling?

The Constitution is a political document. The Declaration a moral one, infused with natural law and rights.

As I said before it has to do with intent and its reliance on the documentary record which the author brings into question, for example the part on Madison and his documentation being just a small portion of the proceedings. That just sort of brings into the debate whether or not we know the whole story when it comes to intent.

Peter1469
08-17-2018, 03:40 PM
Yes, but according to the paper there are no explicit references to such. It is simply assumed. So the question then is how does that relate to intent and our interpretation of it especially if you agree with the assumptions.

The Declaration explicitly invokes natural law. The Constitution may not use the words natural law, but the principles underlying the Constitution mirror the concepts of natural law.


The Declaration of Independence forthrightly states "We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

That is natural law in brief.

Chris
08-17-2018, 03:44 PM
As I said before it has to do with intent and its reliance on the documentary record which the author brings into question, for example the part on Madison and his documentation being just a small portion of the proceedings. That just sort of brings into the debate whether or not we know the whole story when it comes to intent.


Right, but that's all he does is call things into question. He offers no answer.

ripmeister
08-17-2018, 03:55 PM
Right, but that's all he does is call things into question. He offers no answer.
I don't think that was the point, rather it was an attempt to lay out the arguments on both sides. At the end though he does seem to argue for a hybrid position from the two camps of thought.

ripmeister
08-17-2018, 03:57 PM
The Declaration explicitly invokes natural law. The Constitution may not use the words natural law, but the principles underlying the Constitution mirror the concepts of natural law.



That is natural law in brief.
Yes. I was referring to the Constitution.

Tahuyaman
08-17-2018, 04:02 PM
Yep. I take the Bible literally as well since it was written by a bunch of guys wandering around in the desert a couple thousand years ago.

How is that relevant to the current validity of the US constitution?

Tahuyaman
08-17-2018, 04:05 PM
The US constitution is arguably one of the most brilliantly written document of all time. Especially when you consider that it remains as relevant today as it did when it was written more than 200 years ago.

Chris
08-17-2018, 04:24 PM
I don't think that was the point, rather it was an attempt to lay out the arguments on both sides. At the end though he does seem to argue for a hybrid position from the two camps of thought.

Right, but there is no other argument. Either you read the document, or you engage in mind-reading--your own.

Dr. Who
08-17-2018, 06:02 PM
Since the Philadelphia press regularly and exhaustively discussed arms and the militia, Pennsylvania provides an excellent case study of eighteenth-century attitudes about these subjects—a fact not lost on Second Amendment scholars. 3 Competing interpretations of the militia and the right to bear arms recently came to a head before the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, with Pennsylvania’s history playing a key role in the Court’s interpretation of the case, which questioned the constitutionality of Washington, DC’s ban on handguns. 4 Numerous petitioners filed briefs invoking the original meaning of the Second Amendment.5 Joseph Scarnati, president pro tempore of the Pennsylvania senate, filed an amicus brief arguing that “Pennsylvania’s history informs any inquiry into the meaning of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Moreover, he asserted that “Pennsylvania’s history supports a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for private purposes.”6 Scarnati’s basic line of reasoning was that since the Quaker government refused to pass a viable militia law before its dissolution, Pennsylvanians enshrined an individual right to self-defense in the 1776 constitution “after seeing firsthand the fatal consequence of relying solely on government to protect publicsafety.”7 Unfortunately, Scarnati’s conclusion is utterly unsubstantiated by historical evidence and shaped more by modern misconceptions and mythologies than actual historical research.


Scholars have contested the meaning of the Second Amendment, and an argument over the collective or individual character of the right to bear arms continues to dominate the literature. Was the Second Amendment meant to protect a state right to preserve the militia (the Collective Rights Model), or did it refer to an individual right to possess and carry guns for self-defense (the so-called Standard Model)?8 To substantiate their claims about the federal Bill of Rights, scholars on both sides of the debate have looked to the precedents established in the militia clauses of state constitutions. Since Pennsylvanians were the first to codify a right to bear arms, their recognition of the “right of the people to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” has garnered particular attention.9 Indeed, Heller’s own brief cites the Pennsylvania constitution to arguethat “eighteenth-century constitutional drafters used ‘bearing arms’ in the individual sense.”10 For Heller, “defense of themselves” means self-defense, and so the right to bear arms protected in clause 13 must be individual.

Heller’s interpretation relies on a selective reading of the 1776 constitution, ignoring the fact that the eighth clause provided protection for those “conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms”—clearly a militia exemption.11 To read “bearing arms” in an “individual sense” in this case would mean that the clause protected those who did not want to be forced to purchase, own, or physically carry firearms. It also renders nonsensical the demand that objectors “pay [an] equivalent” for the personal service.The first mistake Heller makes is to assume that “defense of themselves” is synonymous with personal self-defense. The second is to remove the concept of self-defense from the community context established by the preamble and various clauses of the Declaration of Rights. The third is not to review Pennsylvania’s own history. What emerged in Pennsylvania between the start of the French and Indian War and the Revolution was a perception of personal and community self-defense that was tied to military mobilization. This is not to say that someone would be expected to call out the militia if his house were being robbed, but rather that true individual and collective security lay in a militia. If Pennsylvanians were going to defend themselves, then the government needed to bring coherence to the state’s volunteer defense associations and compel service from every man.

READ MORE (https://journals.psu.edu/pmhb/article/viewFile/59337/59064)

Captdon
08-17-2018, 06:09 PM
I guess that depends on whether you thing the documentary evidence is reliable. Take Madisons notes for example. As I recall there were some contradictions throughout so which do you accept, or is it not as black and white as some would make it out to be?

I've read them a couple of times. i saw no contradictions. Point out a few. There are also all the debates with Hamilton. No, too much of what the writers said is available to say we don't know what they meant. It's just a liberal excuse to use SCOTUS to get what they can't get otherwise.

Captdon
08-17-2018, 06:20 PM
The prefatory clause is wholly consistent with the prohibition against a standing army and the need for a domestic militia of the people, who thus must necessarily keep and bear arms. Transpose the entire two sentences to any 18th century book and that is exactly how they would be interpreted both now and in the 18th century - in conjunction. However, reading them in conjunction would produce an interpretation that would call into question the ordinary right to bear arms, particularly in view of the fact that there is now a standing army and no particular need for domestic militia organically organized from the males members of American communities. Riots in the streets might ensue if such an interpretation were reached by the Court.

Where is a standing army prohibited? It was an unpopular idea but not prohibited.

You are interpreting the Constitution right here:


interpretation that would call into question the ordinary right to bear arms, particularly in view of the fact that there is now a standing army and no particular need for domestic militia organically organized from the males members of American communities.

I know that no militia can defeat our modern army bit that doesn't change my rights to be in a militia or try to fight if it was necessary.

You're wrong about interpretation. The intent hasn't changed. If you don't like it amend it.

Captdon
08-17-2018, 06:26 PM
The INTENT of the Second Amendment was to prevent the government from doing what we fought the Battle of Concorde to stop, the seizing of our weapons by a tyrannical government.

The 2A wasn't about letting the men on the frontiers keep their arms. It was about having the arms to hand when the local governments got "uppity".

I believe it's Federalist 29 that explains this, but I can never keep the numbers straight.

All the people were the militia. That's what the founders believed.I used the frontier as a reason not the whole purpose. They needed to be able to defend themselves to remain free.

Your picky little comments aren't very impressive. If you think it's #29 then quote it.

Ethereal
08-17-2018, 06:37 PM
The Constitution defines only one crime: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" - Article III, Section 3. That would seem to indicate that the Constitution was not granting permission or creating a contingency plan for a violent coup d'etat. It does provide for elections as a democratic method of purging bad or tyrannical governments.

I'm not sure I follow you.

Ethereal
08-17-2018, 06:38 PM
The fact that you are not an atheist doesn't mean everything has a religious connotation.
The political ideology of the founders was premised on a belief in a divine power. Everything stemmed from that.

Ethereal
08-17-2018, 06:40 PM
No, they don't.

The prefatory clause is an EXPLANATION.

The operative clause is a COMMAND.
You realize that both explanations and commands can convey an intent, right?

Captdon
08-17-2018, 06:40 PM
Yes I thought there were some good points on original intent and whether it can be determined with any confidence because if you can't determine it with confidence then you can't make it the basis for interpretation.
Another point made that I found interesting was the contention that the Framers accepted Natural Law, rights that were not explicitly in the Constitution. Was that omission intentional or was it just assumed? How can one be sure?

Of course they accepted natural law. Who wouldn't? They weren't writing a book.

All your doing is grasping at straws. The original intent is easy to know. It isn't always easy to accept. There's your problem right there.

Captdon
08-17-2018, 06:42 PM
I don't think that was the point, rather it was an attempt to lay out the arguments on both sides. At the end though he does seem to argue for a hybrid position from the two camps of thought.

No, he didn't. He wanted to have a compromise because he painted himself into a corner. He saw he had written nonsense. It was well written but nonsense.

Ethereal
08-17-2018, 06:44 PM
What am I talking to here? It was a generic "you". Let me make it simple for you. The fact that SOMEONE is not an atheist does not mean that everything has a religious connotation for that person.

Did that make it easier for you?

The context does not give any indication of a religious connotation to Jefferson's words. In fact, the opposite is true. Jefferson, and the Signers who concurred, were prioritizing. As important to them as their lives and fortunes may have been, they placed their honor above all. The text has been picked apart and analyzed by historians and linguists for two centuries and you will not fine one serious scholar who sees anything other than a personal value statement. There is no deity connection.

Your smart assed little comments can't disguise the fact that you are not much brighter than the rodents to whom you like to compare your political opposition.

So the fact that Jefferson expressly mentions God and a creator in the DOI does not denote a religious document?

God was the foundation of their belief system. It was essentially all-encompassing.

Ethereal
08-17-2018, 06:46 PM
I guess that depends on whether you thing the documentary evidence is reliable. Take Madisons notes for example. As I recall there were some contradictions throughout so which do you accept, or is it not as black and white as some would make it out to be?

I'm not sure which contradictions you're referring to.

Tahuyaman
08-17-2018, 06:46 PM
This one will soon be in the gutter.

Captdon
08-17-2018, 06:46 PM
And that is fine. I'm no legal scholar as I'm sure is quite apparent but since becoming aware of this debate from the time of Bork I find it to be an interesting conundrum, that is, how do we gauge intent. I don't think its as simple or black and white as some would make it out to be.

You don't have to be a legal scholar. You do have to do more than "feel" what it is. You do have to look at the journals, notes, letters and arguments at that time. It is a study.

Dr. Who
08-17-2018, 06:48 PM
I'm not sure I follow you.
I believe that you suggested that one of the underlying tenets of the individual right to bear arms was to support the right of the people to overthrow a tyranny. However, according to the Constitution, levying war against the US would be considered treason.

Ethereal
08-17-2018, 06:49 PM
Another point made that I found interesting was the contention that the Framers accepted Natural Law...

Are you suggesting they didn't?


...rights that were not explicitly in the Constitution. Was that omission intentional or was it just assumed? How can one be sure?
That's why we have the ninth amendment. It makes clear that the bill of rights is not an exhaustive listing of our rights and that there are other rights retained by the people. That they were not expressly enumerated in the bill of rights was merely a practical consideration.

Captdon
08-17-2018, 06:51 PM
Yes, but according to the paper there are no explicit references to such. It is simply assumed. So the question then is how does that relate to intent and our interpretation of it especially if you agree with the assumptions.

While the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document per se it does say there are rights that are natural "among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." There are other natural rights as well.You think that the men who voted for this changed their minds? They thought they were obvious is the correct thought.

Ethereal
08-17-2018, 06:53 PM
I believe that you suggested that one of the underlying tenets of the individual right to bear arms was to support the right of the people to overthrow a tyranny. However, according to the Constitution, levying war against the US would be considered treason.

Tyranny is treason against the US. Overthrowing a tyranny would therefore be an act of lawfulness.

Peter1469
08-17-2018, 06:54 PM
Where is a standing army prohibited? It was an unpopular idea but not prohibited.

You are interpreting the Constitution right here:


[/COLOR]I know that no militia can defeat our modern army bit that doesn't change my rights to be in a militia or try to fight if it was necessary.

You're wrong about interpretation. The intent hasn't changed. If you don't like it amend it.
Why not. The Afghans have.

Captdon
08-17-2018, 06:59 PM
I believe that you suggested that one of the underlying tenets of the individual right to bear arms was to support the right of the people to overthrow a tyranny. However, according to the Constitution, levying war against the US would be considered treason.

It would be treason. But there is no such thing as a democratically elected tyranny. If we needed to defend against one we would be able to. They didn't want the government to have all the means of war.

Remember that the founders themselves committed treason to begin with. It doesn't matter if you win.

Captdon
08-17-2018, 07:04 PM
I know that no militia can defeat our modern army bit that doesn't change my rights to be in a militia or try to fight if it was necessary.


Why not. The Afghans have.

Yes, I that seems to be true-twice. Mea culpa.(This is for Who)

Dr. Who
08-17-2018, 07:05 PM
Tyranny is treason against the US. Overthrowing a tyranny would therefore be an act of lawfulness.
The Constitution provided for democratic elections to rid the country of any government that the people no longer want. Why would there be a need to overthrow the government?

Chris
08-17-2018, 07:06 PM
Since the Philadelphia press regularly and exhaustively discussed arms and the militia, Pennsylvania provides an excellent case study of eighteenth-century attitudes about these subjects—a fact not lost on Second Amendment scholars. 3 Competing interpretations of the militia and the right to bear arms recently came to a head before the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, with Pennsylvania’s history playing a key role in the Court’s interpretation of the case, which questioned the constitutionality of Washington, DC’s ban on handguns. 4 Numerous petitioners filed briefs invoking the original meaning of the Second Amendment.5 Joseph Scarnati, president pro tempore of the Pennsylvania senate, filed an amicus brief arguing that “Pennsylvania’s history informs any inquiry into the meaning of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Moreover, he asserted that “Pennsylvania’s history supports a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for private purposes.”6 Scarnati’s basic line of reasoning was that since the Quaker government refused to pass a viable militia law before its dissolution, Pennsylvanians enshrined an individual right to self-defense in the 1776 constitution “after seeing firsthand the fatal consequence of relying solely on government to protect publicsafety.”7 Unfortunately, Scarnati’s conclusion is utterly unsubstantiated by historical evidence and shaped more by modern misconceptions and mythologies than actual historical research.


Scholars have contested the meaning of the Second Amendment, and an argument over the collective or individual character of the right to bear arms continues to dominate the literature. Was the Second Amendment meant to protect a state right to preserve the militia (the Collective Rights Model), or did it refer to an individual right to possess and carry guns for self-defense (the so-called Standard Model)?8 To substantiate their claims about the federal Bill of Rights, scholars on both sides of the debate have looked to the precedents established in the militia clauses of state constitutions. Since Pennsylvanians were the first to codify a right to bear arms, their recognition of the “right of the people to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” has garnered particular attention.9 Indeed, Heller’s own brief cites the Pennsylvania constitution to arguethat “eighteenth-century constitutional drafters used ‘bearing arms’ in the individual sense.”10 For Heller, “defense of themselves” means self-defense, and so the right to bear arms protected in clause 13 must be individual.

Heller’s interpretation relies on a selective reading of the 1776 constitution, ignoring the fact that the eighth clause provided protection for those “conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms”—clearly a militia exemption.11 To read “bearing arms” in an “individual sense” in this case would mean that the clause protected those who did not want to be forced to purchase, own, or physically carry firearms. It also renders nonsensical the demand that objectors “pay [an] equivalent” for the personal service.The first mistake Heller makes is to assume that “defense of themselves” is synonymous with personal self-defense. The second is to remove the concept of self-defense from the community context established by the preamble and various clauses of the Declaration of Rights. The third is not to review Pennsylvania’s own history. What emerged in Pennsylvania between the start of the French and Indian War and the Revolution was a perception of personal and community self-defense that was tied to military mobilization. This is not to say that someone would be expected to call out the militia if his house were being robbed, but rather that true individual and collective security lay in a militia. If Pennsylvanians were going to defend themselves, then the government needed to bring coherence to the state’s volunteer defense associations and compel service from every man.

READ MORE (https://journals.psu.edu/pmhb/article/viewFile/59337/59064)


Indeed,finding the right to be an individual right was, imo, wrong. It's a right of the people, citizens, which individuals share in by their participation as citizens.

None of that denies the right

Captdon
08-17-2018, 07:06 PM
The Constitution provided for democratic elections to rid the country of any government that the people no longer want. Why would there be a need to overthrow the government?

If a tyranny overthrew the Constitution.

Dr. Who
08-17-2018, 07:17 PM
It would be treason. But there is no such thing as a democratically elected tyranny. If we needed to defend against one we would be able to. They didn't want the government to have all the means of war.

Remember that the founders themselves committed treason to begin with. It doesn't matter if you win.
I will grant you that the crime of treason would be irrelevant if the coup or revolt succeeded, however that doesn't mean that if a significant number of people determined to institute a monarchy in America by force, that it wouldn't be a treasonous act. In fact, at the time of the Revolution, there were a significant number who supported the British Crown and were not against the idea of a monarchical form of government. The potential for treason through collusion with the British continued to exist post-independence.