PDA

View Full Version : The Constitution



Perianne
05-27-2014, 06:53 PM
The U. S. Constitution:

Living document or not?

I say not. I believe it is very limited for a purpose.

Discuss now with respect.

Chris
05-27-2014, 07:16 PM
Not in the sense of redefining its original meaning.

Yes in terms of its built in amendment process.

Peter1469
05-27-2014, 07:57 PM
Broadly speaking there are two schools of thought.

1. The Founders created a timeless document that could govern civil society and if changes were needed two methods were provided for. (Amendment and Convention).

2. The living constitution theory: 18th century farmers could not have anticipated what we would turn into therefore we should give wide latitude in interpreting Constitution to account for modernity.

Depending on the quality of responses I may or may not respond with my opinion of the merits of each school of thought.

Perianne
05-27-2014, 08:01 PM
Depending on the quality of responses I may or may not respond with my opinion of the merits of each school of thought.

I hope you (and Alyosha) and other attorneys do respond.

It is like starting a medical thread without insiders like me. It would not have nearly as much umpf to it.

Peter1469
05-27-2014, 08:14 PM
I hope you (and @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863)) and other attorneys do respond.

It is like starting a medical thread without insiders like me. It would not have nearly as much umpf to it.


Hit up Adelaide for the medical stuff. She is like one of the only doc like people I trust. But then I am not considered to be a good patient. :undecided: If I didn't have really good insurance I would have gotten voted out of the hospital. :smiley:

zelmo1234
05-27-2014, 08:22 PM
The Constitution was designed by the founding fathers to be changed over time! So in that since it is a living Document.

However they as Peter pointed out gave the people and the congress the ability to make the needed changed, and they made that process hard because they did not trust government! So you have the right to amend the constitution in 2 ways.

Now what we refer to a living document today is an abomination of what the founding fathers intended! This is the interpretation of power hungry politicians that know they could not have seized this much power if the people actually had a say in the matter, as the founding fathers intended

Peter1469
05-27-2014, 08:26 PM
The common use of the term living document means literally that the constitution means what we think today.

Period.

zelmo1234
05-27-2014, 08:30 PM
The common use of the term living document means literally that the constitution means what we think today.

Period.

Well that common use of the term is Bull SHIT!!! then, They allowed for it to be changed because the knew that it would need to be changed

Peter1469
05-27-2014, 08:37 PM
Exactly. But that is the liberal school of thought.


Well that common use of the term is Bull SHIT!!! then, They allowed for it to be changed because the knew that it would need to be changed

Chris
05-28-2014, 09:06 AM
The common use of the term living document means literally that the constitution means what we think today.

Period.


True, as opposed to what the words meant when written. In this school of thought are originalists, who think you can determine that by looking at political ideological writings when it was written, and there are textualists, who think you need to take the plain meanings of the words understood at the time it was voted on.

Captain Obvious
05-28-2014, 09:11 AM
The concept of integrity is important but the concept of common sense is far, far moreso.

Too many people idolize the constitution as if it were some commandment from God which is wholly absolute and unquestionable.

There are concepts in the Constitution that are obsolete, it needs rethunk at this point.

But by who? At this point the Constitution is more of a tool for political agenda promotion than a politically guiding document.

We are collectively ungovernable. I've said that before.

Chris
05-28-2014, 09:21 AM
The concept of integrity is important but the concept of common sense is far, far moreso.

Too many people idolize the constitution as if it were some commandment from God which is wholly absolute and unquestionable.

There are concepts in the Constitution that are obsolete, it needs rethunk at this point.

But by who? At this point the Constitution is more of a tool for political agenda promotion than a politically guiding document.

We are collectively ungovernable. I've said that before.


A while back there was some professor, Harvard, some place like that, a liberal no less, who came out and said similar about the authority of the Constitution, that simply citing the Constitution is not in itself justification for some political stance or action, that you also need to appeal to common sense, iow, the common understandings and values of people.

And I agree.

But then you follow the amendment process rather that change by fiat of executive order, judicial activism, or even legislative law.

Captain Obvious
05-28-2014, 09:25 AM
A while back there was some professor, Harvard, some place like that, a liberal no less, who came out and said similar about the authority of the Constitution, that simply citing the Constitution is not in itself justification for some political stance or action, that you also need to appeal to common sense, iow, the common understandings and values of people.

And I agree.

But then you follow the amendment process rather that change by fiat of executive order, judicial activism, or even legislative law.

I guess I understand that, but ask yourself - at what point is it better to tear up and resurface the driveway instead of just tarring and sealing it?

Chris
05-28-2014, 09:30 AM
I guess I understand that, but ask yourself - at what point is it better to tear up and resurface the driveway instead of just tarring and sealing it?


That seems to me to be what living constitutionalists desire. I would prefer building on the commonsense experience and knowledge of the past and thus am a textualist.

Peter1469
05-28-2014, 03:50 PM
True, as opposed to what the words meant when written. In this school of thought are originalists, who think you can determine that by looking at political ideological writings when it was written, and there are textualists, who think you need to take the plain meanings of the words understood at the time it was voted on.

I lumped those to together to keep the conversation simple. I start with the text and then move to other contemporary documents if needed. It is also helpful to understand the compromises that were made to get the constitution passed.

Perianne
05-28-2014, 03:57 PM
I am a black and white type of girl, for whatever it's worth.

Take the abortion thingy. First there was the right to privacy, and then, building on that "right", comes the right to abortion. I don't really know how to put it into words, but can't you just take the Constitution and make it whatever you want it to be if you don't follow it word for word?

I hope ya'll know what I am saying. I am not on top of my game today.

Chris
05-28-2014, 04:29 PM
I am a black and white type of girl, for whatever it's worth.

Take the abortion thingy. First there was the right to privacy, and then, building on that "right", comes the right to abortion. I don't really know how to put it into words, but can't you just take the Constitution and make it whatever you want it to be if you don't follow it word for word?

I hope ya'll know what I am saying. I am not on top of my game today.

Understand and agree. The right to privacy is at best a penumbral right, at worst an invented right.

The Sage of Main Street
05-28-2014, 04:32 PM
I hope you (and @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863)) and other attorneys do respond.

It is like starting a medical thread without insiders like me. . No, it's more like the original Protestants interpreting Christianity against the professionals in the Vatican.

Redrose
05-29-2014, 11:44 PM
I believe it is a living document because amendments can be added or repealed as necessary, prohibition for one example. I also feel the process is a difficult one to protect us from radical administrations looking to alter the course of this nation by altering our Constitution. IMO President Obama became a Constitutional Attorney for one purpose, to understand its tenets thoroughly in order to identify its weaknesses and attack it to advance his progressive/socialist agenda. A loose canon like Obama, using his pen and phone, circumventing the Congress and our system of checks and balances, can do a great deal of damage to our freedoms. Our Founding Fathers created that document for precisely that scenario, a power crazed, ideologically driven, renegade administration. Those who blindly support Obama and his threat to by-pass the do nothing Congress, must realize his actions if left unchallenged, will establish precedent, precedent that will be cited by future administrations, good and bad. They must understand a future president may try to use his Executive Power to repeal the 13th Amendment for example, which abolished slavery. What a nightmare that would be. Neither party should allow any president to abuse his authority as to the Constitution. It's the glue that keeps this nation together. It's worked well for over two hundred years and has set us above every other country.

The Sage of Main Street
05-30-2014, 10:40 AM
I believe it is a living document because amendments can be added or repealed as necessary, prohibition for one example. I also feel the process is a difficult one to protect us from radical administrations looking to alter the course of this nation by altering our Constitution. IMO President Obama became a Constitutional Attorney for one purpose, to understand its tenets thoroughly in order to identify its weaknesses and attack it to advance his progressive/socialist agenda. A loose cannon like Obama, using his pen and phone, circumventing the Congress and our system of checks and balances, can do a great deal of damage to our freedoms. Our Founding Fathers created that document for precisely that scenario, a power crazed, ideologically driven, renegade administration. Those who blindly support Obama and his threat to by-pass the do nothing Congress, must realize his actions, if left unchallenged, will establish precedent, precedent that will be cited by future administrations, good and bad. What a nightmare that would be. Neither party should allow any president to abuse his authority as to the Constitution. It's the glue that keeps this nation together. It's worked well for over two hundred years and has set us above every other country. You're giving it credit for all American progress. Contrary to our cradle-to-grave brainwashing about this totalitarian Class Supremacy document, real Americans succeeded in making life better in spite of the oligarchy's anti-democratic manifesto. By glorifying this obsolete 18th Century political leaflet, Constitutionazis insult those who really were valuable to America. Their Golden Calf led directly to the Civil War, lack of infrastructure, a weak army and navy, and the miseries on the frontier caused by the lack of federal protection, especially of squatters' rights over the land sold to idle speculators.

Peter1469
05-30-2014, 10:47 AM
If it is a living document, it doesn't mean anything.




I believe it is a living document because amendments can be added or repealed as necessary, prohibition for one example. I also feel the process is a difficult one to protect us from radical administrations looking to alter the course of this nation by altering our Constitution. IMO President Obama became a Constitutional Attorney for one purpose, to understand its tenets thoroughly in order to identify its weaknesses and attack it to advance his progressive/socialist agenda. A loose canon like Obama, using his pen and phone, circumventing the Congress and our system of checks and balances, can do a great deal of damage to our freedoms. Our Founding Fathers created that document for precisely that scenario, a power crazed, ideologically driven, renegade administration. Those who blindly support Obama and his threat to by-pass the do nothing Congress, must realize his actions if left unchallenged, will establish precedent, precedent that will be cited by future administrations, good and bad. They must understand a future president may try to use his Executive Power to repeal the 13th Amendment for example, which abolished slavery. What a nightmare that would be. Neither party should allow any president to abuse his authority as to the Constitution. It's the glue that keeps this nation together. It's worked well for over two hundred years and has set us above every other country.

Cthulhu
05-30-2014, 01:26 PM
If it is a living document, it doesn't mean anything.

Living document? Well, indeed it could be changed so in a sense it is a protean document. However the changes made are not in the spirit of its creation. Actually quite contrary to be honest.

If we were to make changes to it through the lens of thought in which it was crafted - it might not be so bad. But with the modern lens we are content to only keep making mistakes.

Obviously some good changes were made - treating blacks like people was a step in the right direction. Institution of the federal income tax? No...

Peter1469
05-30-2014, 01:35 PM
Living document? Well, indeed it could be changed so in a sense it is a protean document. However the changes made are not in the spirit of its creation. Actually quite contrary to be honest.

If we were to make changes to it through the lens of thought in which it was crafted - it might not be so bad. But with the modern lens we are content to only keep making mistakes.

Obviously some good changes were made - treating blacks like people was a step in the right direction. Institution of the federal income tax? No...

The slavery issue almost prevented the Constitution from being ratified. The issue was tabled for 50 years. And we know what happened then.

1751_Texan
05-30-2014, 02:40 PM
Exactly. But that is the liberal school of thought.

Then American liberalism began in 1789 with the change from the articles of Confederation to the US Constitution with its 10 amendment addition. American Liberalism has continued from the 11th to the
27th amendments.

nic34
05-30-2014, 02:44 PM
A constitution that cannot adapt is dead.

Chris
05-30-2014, 03:05 PM
A constitution that cannot adapt is dead.

Timeless principles don't change. That would be like saying the basic laws of physics or evolution change rather than the world change by them

Alyosha
05-30-2014, 04:48 PM
Perianne

there is a thread somewhere where jillian and I debated the subject in a lot of detail. I'll try to find it. I'm just wrecked right now.

Peter1469
05-30-2014, 05:59 PM
A constitution that cannot adapt is dead.

Those crafty Founders added two ways to change the Constitution.....

Bob
05-30-2014, 07:35 PM
Those crafty Founders added two ways to change the Constitution.....

Good grief. These people must think the constitution is some animal to be alive.

They totally ignore it is the directions to Government as to how it is to operate.

Bob
05-30-2014, 07:38 PM
A constitution that cannot adapt is dead.

By all means, use the constitution directions and adapt it. Change it. Modify it.

But don't pretend the words mean something else. Those words are easy to understand.

Bob
05-30-2014, 07:45 PM
Then American liberalism began in 1789 with the change from the articles of Confederation to the US Constitution with its 10 amendment addition. American Liberalism has continued from the 11th to the
27th amendments.

American liberalism is not liberalism. It is a mistake to allege Democrats operate nor support something called liberal.

The correct way to change the constitution is clearly spelled out. But the left winger believes in change by courts over changes by writing. Take Roe v wade. That issue as Justice Rhenquist made clear is wrong.

While WE have privacy, we do not have privacy when it comes to taking lives.

The term privacy is not found in the constitution nor is abortion. But so called Liberals don't mind killing children.

The Sage of Main Street
05-31-2014, 10:22 AM
If it is a living document, it doesn't mean anything. It shows the same attitude towards the majority of Americans that the King of England and his flunkies had.

Chris
05-31-2014, 10:24 AM
It shows the same attitude towards the majority of Americans that the King of England and his flunkies had.

And that's when you turn from the legal foundation of the country to it's moral foundation, and "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."