• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

the courts rulings change with the way the winds blows, the constitution remains constant in its textual meanings, like a rock!

Sorry but no. If the constitution remained constant in its textual meanings there wouldn't be such different rulings. So the constitution, despite conservatives objections, remains a living and breathing document and not set in stone as it can be changed and amended.
 
the courts rulings change with the way the winds blows, the constitution remains constant in its textual meanings, like a rock!

Wrong. Even the founding fathers recognized that the Constitution must evolve with changing technology and changing society:

"I am certainly not an advocate for for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Thomas Jefferson
 
Wrong. Even the founding fathers recognized that the Constitution must evolve with changing technology and changing society:

"I am certainly not an advocate for for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Thomas Jefferson


you missed this (textual meaning)........if it says we are the right to bare arms, has that changed in over 200 years........no
 
Sorry but no. If the constitution remained constant in its textual meanings there wouldn't be such different rulings. So the constitution, despite conservatives objections, remains a living and breathing document and not set in stone as it can be changed and amended.

sorry no ..the constitution of the founders, has not changed, becuase the founders, left us with what it means, its only the courts who want to keep changing the meaning, but the text is still there, and what the founders say it means.

example: the constitution says this.."To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

the court says this gives government the power to regulate all commerce, that's false, the constitution says AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, it gave congress no power inside the states to regulate, even the founders say this, in federalist papers.
 
sorry no ..the constitution of the founders, has not changed, becuase the founders, left us with what it means, its only the courts who want to keep changing the meaning, but the text is still there, and what the founders say it means.

example: the constitution says this.."To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

the court says this gives government the power to regulate all commerce, that's false, the constitution says AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, it gave congress no power inside the states to regulate, even the founders say this, in federalist papers.

Hmmm well let's see. We have you, a random Internet poster on a message board and many other judges that have dealt differently. I think I'll take their view of the constitution over the view of some random anonymous Internet message board poster such as yourself.

But please continue acting like your view actually means something ok? It at least gives me a laugh.
 
Hmmm well let's see. We have you, a random Internet poster on a message board and many other judges that have dealt differently. I think I'll take their view of the constitution over the view of some random anonymous Internet message board poster such as yourself.

But please continue acting like your view actually means something ok? It at least gives me a laugh.

well who is the wiser, the court, or the man who is the father of the constitution.
 
well who is the wiser, the court, or the man who is the father of the constitution.

Who is still alive today to deal with it?
A judge or the father the constitution?

If you have means of contacting a 200 year plus dead founding father to clarify what is meant in the constitution please share with the rest of us.
 
well who is the wiser, the court, or the man who is the father of the constitution.

As Jefferson points out....the founding fathers were not the fools that the so-called "strict constructionists" would have you believe. They clearly anticipated changes in technology and social mores which is the entire reason we have the Supreme Court of the United States. If the founding fathers had anticipated a rigid unchanging document, there would be no need for the Court.
 
well who is the wiser, the court, or the man who is the father of the constitution.

Um even the founding fathers realized the constitution wasn't perfect and implemented a way so it can be changed. Again you are out of your league.
 
Who is still alive today to deal with it?
A judge or the father the constitution?

If you have means of contacting a 200 year plus dead founding father to clarify what is meant in the constitution please share with the rest of us.

tell me what does among mean for the USSC?...it means....... inside the states

what does among mean to the founders?...it means between the several states. or its members.

what does among mean by a dictionary?

a·mong
/əˈməNG/
Preposition

Surrounded by; in the company of.
Being a member or members of (a larger set): "he was among the first 29 students enrolled".



the court's definition of among , can change from court to court, but the meaning of the constitution by its words dont.

Madison on commerce.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce)
James Madison, Federalist, no. 42, 283--85
22 Jan. 1788

The defect of power in the existing confederacy, to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience.

Madison is clear under the articles of confederation commerce has a defect, this is why commerce under the constitution was turned over the federal government to regulate commerce AMONG the several states...never inside them
 
Um even the founding fathers realized the constitution wasn't perfect and implemented a way so it can be changed. Again you are out of your league.

well wrong road your taking, if the text is changed the meaning will change,....i started out by saying the court changes the meaning, but if the text does not change then that meaning of coarse stays the same.

but the court as in its mind, it has the ability to reinterpret words for their own means.

among for them is ..inside

among for the founders ...between
 
tell me what does among mean for the USSC?...it means....... inside the states

what does among mean to the founders?...it means between the several states. or its members.

what does among mean by a dictionary?


a·mong
/əˈməNG/
Preposition

Surrounded by; in the company of.
Being a member or members of (a larger set): "he was among the first 29 students enrolled".



the court's definition of among , can change from court to court, but the meaning of the constitution by its words dont.

Madison on commerce.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce)
James Madison, Federalist, no. 42, 283--85
22 Jan. 1788

The defect of power in the existing confederacy, to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience.

Madison is clear under the articles of confederation commerce has a defect, this is why commerce under the constitution was turned over the federal government to regulate commerce AMONG the several states...never inside them
Well then,Madison should get his lazy ass out of the grave and do something about it.
Because people whining about it on some political forum has never changed a damn thing.

Congratulations Ernst you're right.Now tell me what you just changed in Reality?
 
Well then,Madison should get his lazy ass out of the grave and do something about it.
Because people whining about it on some political forum has never changed a damn thing.

Congratulations Ernst you're right.Now tell me what you just changed in Reality?

i believe you are not staying true to what is being said...

all i have stated simply is, ...words have meanings, and the court has never been given the power to change the meanings of words,...but they have and it can change depending on the court..the way the wind blows.

but the founders meanings will never change.... because they are written and explained by them.
 
Well then,Madison should get his lazy ass out of the grave and do something about it.
Because people whining about it on some political forum has never changed a damn thing.

Congratulations Ernst you're right.Now tell me what you just changed in Reality?

Communication. It's all about the communication. So much of our politics is about ideas that whoever gets the message out the best gets to propagate their ideas the most. Another classic political tactic I've seen lately is the attempt to ridicule political opponents into silence, leaving their message as the only one to be heard.

Good go, that was.
 
Communication. It's all about the communication. So much of our politics is about ideas that whoever gets the message out the best gets to propagate their ideas the most. Another classic political tactic I've seen lately is the attempt to ridicule political opponents into silence, leaving their message as the only one to be heard.

Good go, that was.
So in other words,it's business as usual in the world of politics.

One can be right about something and still have it be meaningless unless the right people are getting suitcases full of cash....
 
i believe you are not staying true to what is being said...

all i have stated simply is, ...words have meanings, and the court has never been given the power to change the meanings of words,...but they have and it can change depending on the court..the way the wind blows.

but the founders meanings will never change.... because they are written and explained by them.

Did I disagree with you?
I stated that you are correct.
Now tell me what in Reality has changed just because you happen to be correct?
 
So in other words,it's business as usual in the world of politics.

One can be right about something and still have it be meaningless unless the right people are getting suitcases full of cash....

Business as usual, indeed. I said 2+2. You shout 7!
 
Communication. It's all about the communication. So much of our politics is about ideas that whoever gets the message out the best gets to propagate their ideas the most. Another classic political tactic I've seen lately is the attempt to ridicule political opponents into silence, leaving their message as the only one to be heard.

Good go, that was.

A perfect description of the rightwing noise machine.
 
well who is the wiser, the court, or the man who is the father of the constitution.

Wrong question. The right question is Who has the authority to decide what the constitution means? Answer: the SC, by the very terms of the Constitution. So the "father" was wise enough to have a procedure to determine these questions, in an adversarial court proceeding, rather than mining the quotes of dead people (i.e., your favorite method).

And if we don't like the results of the procedure, we can always amend the Constitution with a supermajority. Deal with it.
 
so the court was given power to change word meanings then?

Hey kids, look, he's pretending interpretation of a law in a legal proceeding, means "changing word meanings". How clever!
 
Back
Top Bottom