Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The document is short and does not take every situation into consideration. Thus, the detail is subject to interpretation.
As an example, the First Amendment states,
"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."
Taken as simply and literally as you interpret, there could be no laws against libel, slander, false advertising, uttering speech that incites riot or requiring permits to protest. Yet, there certainly are and should be.
Moreover, I could belong to a religion that forbids paying taxes and Congress could do nothing to compel me to pay them, else they'd be prohibiting the free exercise of my religion.
That's why there are courts to determine what the Constitution means.
That is why the Founders provided for a Supreme Court and such other courts as Congress should think necessary. Our court system is mostly, not all courts can interpret the Constitution. made up of courts that can interpret the document but the Supreme Court has final say as to what the Constitution means. This is very understandable by the number of 9th Judicial Court rulings that have been overturned. A very liberal court, in membership, with a not so liberal Supreme Court.
No matter what a liberal says, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter.
The Hughes court allowed for the formation of SS. This was a very conservative court that struck down many of the new deal ideas to the point where FDR tried to pack the court but was beaten back by both Lib. and con.. My point is you never know how a court will interpet a law until they give there opin.
I guess you don't really understand what we of the strict construction believers say about so many liberal loose constructionist judges, do you?
Strict construction? I guess the founders wasted their time in 1791 when they proposed the Bill of Rights, or when they made room for amendments to the Constitution.
It's not a cult, it's just fundy loon thinking. People take parts of the document they like and espouse them, ignore the parts they don't like, and "re-interpreted" parts to mean what they think already. It's been done with the Bible for centuries, and people still do it.
People who do it think they are some how finding new things, or some how "know" what the founding fathers thought, that people over 2 centuries litigated and wrote about didn't know. People who vastly have little knowledge, education, or experience in anything they are talking about. They are people who are so stupid they not only don't know they are stupid they think they know more then everyone else over the history of the US.
That reminds me of the Futurama quote--
High Priest: Great Wall of Prophecy, reveal to us God's will that we may blindly obey.
Priests: [chanting] Free us from thought and responsibility.
High Priest: We shall read things off you.
Priests: [chanting] Then do them.
High Priest: Your words guide us.
Priests: [chanting] We're dumb.
Just replace "God" with "Founding Fathers", and "Great Wall of Prophecy" with "Constitution", and the quotes could come from the same thought...
Wow, what a very well written bit of uninformed crap!!!!! I don't think you managed to change my mind, at all, but then I am at least as biased the other direction as you are.
Strict construction? I guess the founders wasted their time in 1791 when they proposed the Bill of Rights, or when they made room for amendments to the Constitution.
They made room for Amedments via a very specific process. They did NOT make room for fluidly changing interpretations, at will. Any changes MUST be made in the form of a ratified Amendment.
Strict construction? I guess the founders wasted their time in 1791 when they proposed the Bill of Rights, or when they made room for amendments to the Constitution.
According to some here, yes. They pick and choose what they think the founding fathers did right and at the same time point to them as their guides, go figure.
The citizens deserve 100% adherence to the US Constitution by those elected officials (including the bureaucratic agencies they create) and military personel who have sworn their oath to uphold and defend it from enemies both foreign and domestic. It is there to protect individual liberty from tryannical governments, be they federal, state, or local.
Who knew our founding fathers were cult leaders?!
Most all of the really progressive liberals of the present day.
That's just it. The ACLU is probably the longest standing, strongest defender of the constitution in this country, but I highly doubt that the OP's version and ACLU's would have much overlap.
You failed to see what the Supreme Court of the US is. Not the ACLU, at all.
It makes no sense to run the country on a subjective or "living" document. How can you have a foundational document that shifts based on the times?
That's ridiculous! It completely ignores how societies move forward. Can you use 1770's logic to write appropriate laws around internet usage or the containment of electromagnetic radiation from power lines? Every foundational document is a statement of its times and if it's any good, can be applied to long future periods. Today is not like yesterday. Today will not be like tomorrow.
Change is inevitable and it scares conservatives, of which I would predict you are one. While I too, at times, find a fluctuating basis for reality a bit daunting, it's better than one set in stone that can never be altered or worse, one that gets applied inappropriately just to continue its hallowed status.
What's so bad about a "living" document anyway? Sure beats a dead one.
They made room for Amedments via a very specific process. They did NOT make room for fluidly changing interpretations, at will. Any changes MUST be made in the form of a ratified Amendment.
Correct. That makes it a living document, not a dead one written on stone and never could be improved upon.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
