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.
Constitutional Scholars and Professors are nothing but opinion pushers whose views fall conveniently down partisan lines.
Why should we listen to any of these folks when its obvious that their interpretation of the law falls conveniently within the confines of their political views?
I have yet to see a so-called Constitutional scholar with liberal leanings provide a cognizant argument as to why a conservative challenge is feasible. Conversely, I have never heard a scholar with conservative leanings provide a cognizant argument as to why a liberal challenge is feasible.
This has been particularly true in the ongoing healthcare reform debate, and certainly proves to be true when States with Democratic Governors and Republican Attorney General's go head to head over the constitutionality of the new healthcare law.
It's total non-sense to rely on these folks, as if it were even remotely possible to receive some sort of bipartisan answer to a uniquely important question.
So are the thousands of judicial opinions that have been necessary over the years in order to establish a consistent interpretation of it. Go read at least a few pertinent ones of those before thinking you've got the hang of the Constitution...
It's the think tanks and "research centers" that are muddying up the waters and trying to make things confusing.
Overall it's pretty cut and dried, however, the Constitution was meant to be a fabric or framework from which to continue to operate our Republic within the mechanism of a democracy, and while it is a basic outline, it is not meant to be a static or inflexible item, but a modestly evolving and challenging vessel within which our country lives and breathes freedom and liberty for us and the world.
Constitutional Scholars and Professors are nothing but opinion pushers whose views fall conveniently down partisan lines.
Why should we listen to any of these folks when its obvious that their interpretation of the law falls conveniently within the confines of their political views?
I have yet to see a so-called Constitutional scholar with liberal leanings provide a cognizant argument as to why a conservative challenge is feasible. Conversely, I have never heard a scholar with conservative leanings provide a cognizant argument as to why a liberal challenge is feasible.
This has been particularly true in the ongoing healthcare reform debate, and certainly proves to be true when States with Democratic Governors and Republican Attorney General's go head to head over the constitutionality of the new healthcare law.
It's total non-sense to rely on these folks, as if it were even remotely possible to receive some sort of bipartisan answer to a uniquely important question.
You're an opinion pusher too. Should we ignore you, or rely on your opinion?
It's kind of like the Bible, everyone makes up their own interpretation which is why there are so many different beliefs all from reading the same text.
We decided to have keepers of the Constitution and to agree to their interpretations to avoid that kind of thing. But that doesn't stop people from trying.
It's kind of like the Bible, everyone makes up their own interpretation which is why there are so many different beliefs all from reading the same text.
We decided to have keepers of the Constitution and to agree to their interpretations to avoid that kind of thing. But that doesn't stop people from trying.
We don’t need “keepers of the Constitution” to tell us what the Constitution says. We just need to know history and read the Constitution. The Constitution is written in plain English.
It's kind of like the Bible, everyone makes up their own interpretation which is why there are so many different beliefs all from reading the same text.
We decided to have keepers of the Constitution and to agree to their interpretations to avoid that kind of thing. But that doesn't stop people from trying.
The right to bear arms....a simple amendment....what ways can you "interpret" this amendment
Ceece wrote:
We don’t need “keepers of the Constitution” to tell us what the Constitution says. We just need to know history and read the Constitution. The Constitution is written in plain English.
Then perhaps the problem is one of reading comprehension because I've read a ton of posts by authors who claim to have read the Constitution and are still abjectly clueless about what it says.
Reading the Constitution is one thing but comprehending the Constitution quite another.
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.
