The Cons ution!!!

[101A]

Undermining the importance of the cons ution is the cool new liberal thing.

I've picked up on that particular talking point, as well.

[EVAY]

It seems to me that liberals use the "the Cons ution is a living do ent and must be interpreted to meet the needs of the day". Conservatives, especially those like Scalia, say "No, the Cons ution is Dead and the only way to interpret any part of it is to know what the writers of the Cons ution meant when they wrote it".

Support for the more liberal position is found in things like the amendment to free slaves, etc. Support for the conservative side is found in the "If it doesn't specifically say it in the cons ution as written 220 years ago it cannot be included now" argument, which is seen in those who equate the absence of a specifically stated right to privacy as a means to deny the abortion decision, or same sex couples, or whatever.

[vy65]

It doesn't make sense to respect or not respect the cons ution. The do ent itself is ambiguous, especially when applied to modern day America. What people really mean when they invoke the cons ution is a particular interpretation or interpretative method. The construction itself is neutral; it's how people use it that matters

[Wild Cobra]

It doesn't make sense to respect or not respect the cons ution. The do ent itself is ambiguous, especially when applied to modern day America. What people really mean when they invoke the cons ution is a particular interpretation or interpretative method. The construction itself is neutral; it's how people use it that matters

You have to understand the times and definitions of the words then. It becomes easier to understand. It was straightforward language for the time.

[ElNono]

It doesn't make sense to respect or not respect the cons ution. The do ent itself is ambiguous, especially when applied to modern day America. What people really mean when they invoke the cons ution is a particular interpretation or interpretative method. The construction itself is neutral; it's how people use it that matters

Ambiguity doesn't preclude respect. You could never know everything about a person, but you can respect that person (or not).

Even if I don't agree with every interpretation of the book or every possible scenario laid out on it, personally I think it's a book with a fair set of rules, and I respect that.

[leemajors]

It seems to me that liberals use the "the Cons ution is a living do ent and must be interpreted to meet the needs of the day". Conservatives, especially those like Scalia, say "No, the Cons ution is Dead and the only way to interpret any part of it is to know what the writers of the Cons ution meant when they wrote it".

Support for the more liberal position is found in things like the amendment to free slaves, etc. Support for the conservative side is found in the "If it doesn't specifically say it in the cons ution as written 220 years ago it cannot be included now" argument, which is seen in those who equate the absence of a specifically stated right to privacy as a means to deny the abortion decision, or same sex couples, or whatever.

He went with the T.S. Eliot defense re: Shakespeare?

[DMC]

35. Why?

Surprising. Most people who don't give a about their own freedoms are kids.

[EVAY]

He went with the T.S. Eliot defense re: Shakespeare?

yeah, pretty much, come to think of it.

[DMC]

The issue of loving or hating the Cons ution per se is not where the action is, imo. It is that when another party does something politically that the first party doesn't like, the Cons ution is used as the billy club to beat the offending party over the head.

We live in a society whose laws are essentially (theoretically) based on the Cons ution. Ergo, any law with which someone disagrees is met with the scream "that is against the Cons ution". It is sort of the paper version of 'I'm gonna get my big brother to make you stop this because it is against the rules'. Most people really don't love the Cons ution...they just love being able to use their interpretation of it to bash things they don't like about somebody else's behaviors.

I'd have to label that as patently false since A: you don't know "most people" and have never interviewed "most people" to know what they think, and B: because many laws are indeed uncons utional and are ruled as such at the highest court. It's nothing like the "big brother" argument. It's a system of checks and balances. The party in power isn't going to police itself, and the followers of that party are going to turn a blind eye to encroachments on our rights. The opposing party is therefore needed to maintain a balance.

[spursncowboys]

It seems to me that liberals use the "the Cons ution is a living do ent and must be interpreted to meet the needs of the day". Conservatives, especially those like Scalia, say "No, the Cons ution is Dead and the only way to interpret any part of it is to know what the writers of the Cons ution meant when they wrote it".

Support for the more liberal position is found in things like the amendment to free slaves, etc. Support for the conservative side is found in the "If it doesn't specifically say it in the cons ution as written 220 years ago it cannot be included now" argument, which is seen in those who equate the absence of a specifically stated right to privacy as a means to deny the abortion decision, or same sex couples, or whatever.

living do ent that can be changed to fit our liking: Roe v. Wade; Emminent Domain, Griswald v. Conneticut; Brown v. Board

Interpret the meaning: slavery; Miranda v. Arizona; Marbury v. Madison; DC v. er

[leemajors]

You have to understand the times and definitions of the words then. It becomes easier to understand. It was straightforward language for the time.

Yeah but this is also an old religious tactic used most effectively by Catholics. You can't understand the Bible, so don't bother. We'll do it for you!

[spursncowboys]

Living cons ution: Dred Scott

[DMC]

It seems to me that liberals use the "the Cons ution is a living do ent and must be interpreted to meet the needs of the day". Conservatives, especially those like Scalia, say "No, the Cons ution is Dead and the only way to interpret any part of it is to know what the writers of the Cons ution meant when they wrote it".

Support for the more liberal position is found in things like the amendment to free slaves, etc. Support for the conservative side is found in the "If it doesn't specifically say it in the cons ution as written 220 years ago it cannot be included now" argument, which is seen in those who equate the absence of a specifically stated right to privacy as a means to deny the abortion decision, or same sex couples, or whatever.

Actually the liberal approach is to about freedom of speech, of the press and too peacefully assemble, but to call for disposal of rights they don't themselves use. That's why they are liberals, they want progression and often at the sake of freedom. Ironic since to liberate means to disen ber, to free, yet they appear to be for more government control which equals fewer freedoms.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah but this is also an old religious tactic used most effectively by Catholics. You can't understand the Bible, so don't bother. We'll do it for you!

I get your point, but 18th century language is still understood by those who choose to understand. It isn't the same as language and time combined, and not having the original do ents that are likely misinterpretation.

[Soul_Patch]

Surprising. Most people who don't give a about their own freedoms are kids.

Has nothing to do with giving a about my freedoms, plenty of countries on this planet have freedoms without our cons ution. I have no problems with the cons ution, this country, or freedom. I am fond of all three. I just don't wear a chip on my shoulder and shout CONS UTION!!! ARRGGHH!! Every time someone makes a political comment I may not agree with. Quite a big difference.

[DMC]

Has nothing to do with giving a about my freedoms, plenty of countries on this planet have freedoms without our cons ution. I have no problems with the cons ution, this country, or freedom. I am fond of all three. I just don't wear a chip on my shoulder and shout CONS UTION!!! ARRGGHH!! Every time someone makes a political comment I may not agree with. Quite a big difference.

You started a topic about not giving a about the same do ent that grants you the freedoms you have. Aren't you a bit old for decadence?

[DMC]

text worshipping is for simple minds who are not adult, independent, educated, well-read enough to think critically on their own.

The coming from a person who's posts most often consists of copy paste from other websites.

[ElNono]

living do ent that can be changed to fit our liking: Roe v. Wade

uh? Roe vs Wade was decided 7-2...

[DarrinS]

Over 100 countries have used it as a model for their own

[Blake]

Surprising. Most people who don't give a about their own freedoms are kids.

Wut.

[Blake]

Surprising. Most people who don't give a about their own freedoms are kids.

Wut.

[spursncowboys]

uh? Roe vs Wade was decided 7-2...

ugh...ok. I knew that but maybe others didn't

[Blake]

ugh...ok. I knew that but maybe others didn't

Nobody needed you to take a stupid bullet for them.

[spursncowboys]

Nobody needed you to take a stupid bullet for them.

huh??

[boutons_deux]

The coming from a person who's posts most often consists of copy paste from other websites.

no surprise you mix the two totally different items.