The Cons ution!!!

[boutons_deux]

one of the false originalist, gun-fellating Repug politicians in his perverted Cons utional interpretation said recently that military muskets were ok for 18th civilians, so NOW all military weaponry is OK for 21st century civilians.

[Th'Pusher]

It's not supposed to be easy to amend the Cons ution, that's what you people don't understand... the Founders didn't want the federal government to have unlimited scope and power....

Well, when needs to get done on a federal level, lawmakers find the path of least resistance to get said done which is why you see the commerce clause being invoked as its language is much more broad. Take the 2nd amendment for example:

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.

So, each individual state has to pass a law saying fully automatic weapons are banned? And if some state like Texas says they shouldn't be, you don't think that is going to effect other states? People won't buy their autos in Texas and smuggle them across the border to Oklahoma? So we need to amend the cons ution to ban automatic weapons? Untenable.

[Blake]

It's not supposed to be easy to amend the Cons ution, that's what you people don't understand... the Founders didn't want the federal government to have unlimited scope and power....

Why is it bad for the federal government to have all the power?

[EVAY]

Not sure that strict cons utionalists would claim the Cons ution is dead. They would argue that the founding fathers knew that while they needed to leave a basic set of rights and principles that would generally stand the test of time, they had just as little right to bind the next generation to their laws as England had to bind the colonists rights to English law. In arguing that the Cons ution lives they would point to Article V which clearly allows the Cons ution to be amended when 2/3 of Congress and the States feel that the Cons ution needs to be amended to meet the needs of today.

Scalia in particular would have no problem with a state passing some of the laws that you reference in your post because the Cons ution is silent on this; however, he would argue that if you want to broaden an amendment to say more than it actually says, just amend the cons ution and spell it out specifically. That is perfectly cons utional. That would be my guess on what Scalia and other strict cons utionalists would argue, if they are being true to what a strict cons utionalist believes.

FYI, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were not liberal positions and not were pushed by conservatives at the time they were passed but it was necessary that conservatives supported the amendments to get them to pass. Having said that, Civil War conservatism and liberalism were very different to the contemporary political definitions.

Well I don't know that Scalia considers himself as much of 'Strict Constructionist' as he considers himself an 'Original Intent' interpreter.

Scalia did, however, in a speech just this week, say "The Cons ution is Dead, Dead, Dead". He was making the point that those who consider the Cons ution to be a 'Living Do ent" were wrong, wrong wrong.

I have often considered myself a strict constructionist, arguing that while I would like to see some things considered uncons utional (or cons utional), it seems to me that we must amend it if we want to allow or disallow certain things. Scalia has specifically taken issue with that position in his adherence to his 'principal intent
interpretation. I will look up the reference to his speech this week and post it for you.

[EVAY]

^^^^^

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ead-86853.html

I just noticed that several people had already found and referenced the quote from Scalia. Sorry to be late with it.

[Clipper Nation]

Why is it bad for the federal government to have all the power?

You really don't see a problem with the federal government being able to do whatever they want? Give politicians too much power and they will abuse and misuse it....

[boutons_deux]

"the federal government being able to do whatever they want"

boogey man scare mongering. You're OK with a Repug govt doing whatever it wants, but not a Dem President + Senate.

The real danger to America is not from the Dems, but if the Repugs ever again gain full control of Congress and Exec along with their control of SCOTUS.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

My biggest concern is that in no place does the Cons ution even reference political parties. I understand the necessity for them even if it is an LCD thing. Universal suffrage is what it is. At the same time our entire political system revolves around them and they are entrenched within laws of their own making lacking any guiding principles. The way that names are put on our ballots, how leadership and committee choices are made in Congress and even the determining factors in what is supposed to be an apolitical body in the SCOTUS.

The second issue that I have is the lack of any address of legal en ies other than to talk of the right to assemble.

In short, the two things that control the governance of the United States more than I would say 'We the people' are not even addressed in that do ent.

[Blake]

You really don't see a problem with the federal government being able to do whatever they want? Give politicians too much power and they will abuse and misuse it....

are the state governments really that much better?

I'm not seeing it.

[Clipper Nation]

are the state governments really that much better?

I'm not seeing it.

Except splitting the power between the federal level and the state level limits the power for both levels and therefore limits the possibility for abuse, overreach, and tyranny.... additionally, smaller-scale issues outside the specific federal powers laid out in the Cons ution are best left to the states, as opposed to bureaucrats in Washington who don't give two s about whether their ideas help anyone other than their lobbyist/special-interest cronies....

[Clipper Nation]

"the federal government being able to do whatever they want"

boogey man scare mongering. You're OK with a Repug govt doing whatever it wants, but not a Dem President + Senate.

Typical Boutons assumption with no merit, tbh.... both major parties have proven to be equally inept at leadership and honesty when able to push through their agenda...

[Blake]

Except splitting the power between the federal level and the state level limits the power for both levels and therefore limits the possibility for abuse, overreach, and tyranny.... additionally, smaller-scale issues outside the specific federal powers laid out in the Cons ution are best left to the states, as opposed to bureaucrats in Washington who don't give two s about whether their ideas help anyone other than their lobbyist/special-interest cronies....

Any specific examples of why state governments are beneficial or necessary?

[Clipper Nation]

Any specific examples of why state governments are beneficial or necessary?

To exercise powers not vested in the federal government (as per the Tenth Amendment)

To exercise powers vested in them by the state cons utions

To act on local, state-level issues that state politicians would know more about than Washington bureaucrats

[spursncowboys]

My biggest concern is that in no place does the Cons ution even reference political parties. I understand the necessity for them even if it is an LCD thing. Universal suffrage is what it is. At the same time our entire political system revolves around them and they are entrenched within laws of their own making lacking any guiding principles. The way that names are put on our ballots, how leadership and committee choices are made in Congress and even the determining factors in what is supposed to be an apolitical body in the SCOTUS.

The second issue that I have is the lack of any address of legal en ies other than to talk of the right to assemble.

In short, the two things that control the governance of the United States more than I would say 'We the people' are not even addressed in that do ent.

Good points.

The one thing the two parties have done with bipartisanship is make sure they maintain power and keep third parties out of it. It was after Perot ran as a third party the first time that all their laws started being created.

I personally hate lawyers and would love for laws to be written in plain english.

[spursncowboys]

Except splitting the power between the federal level and the state level limits the power for both levels and therefore limits the possibility for abuse, overreach, and tyranny.... additionally, smaller-scale issues outside the specific federal powers laid out in the Cons ution are best left to the states, as opposed to bureaucrats in Washington who don't give two s about whether their ideas help anyone other than their lobbyist/special-interest cronies....

Here here

[Blake]

To act on local, state-level issues that state politicians would know more about than Washington bureaucrats

if you aren't going to give a specific issue, just let me know now so that I can stop asking for one. Thanks.

[Blake]

Here here

no need to be a cheerleader. Feel free to get in the game and answer the question.

[spursncowboys]

no need to be a cheerleader. Feel free to get in the game and answer the question.

No need to act like you contribute beside a troll
What question?

[boutons_deux]

Good points.

The one thing the two parties have done with bipartisanship is make sure they maintain power and keep third parties out of it. It was after Perot ran as a third party the first time that all their laws started being created.

I personally hate lawyers and would love for laws to be written in plain english.

any third or other parties would be quickly corrupted by corporate/1% money.

There really is no solution. The people benefitting (being enriched) by the status quo have the power to maintain it, and improve to their increased benefit.

[Blake]

No need to act like you contribute beside a troll
What question?

I don't really care if you answer my question, tbh. Go back to cheerleading.

[spursncowboys]

I'll definitely go back to ignoring you.

[Blake]

I'll definitely go back to ignoring you.

but first, you'll tell me you're ignoring me.

keep on being the great contributor to this forum that you are.

[Juggity]

The Cons ution is a solid do ent for the most part, but to pretend it is completely applicable to today's world in the same capacity as it was when enacted is ludicrous. The world has changed almost beyond recognition. The Cons ution should not be treated like some sacred thing locked behind an impenetrable barrier; if there is something wrong with the cons ution it is our responsibility to recognize that and correct it. It was meant to be utilitarian more than symbolic, but has become a shield used by people who hate the fact that the world is changing.