• 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!

Beyond AIG: A Bill to let Big Government Set Your Salary

Ummm just to let you know what the founding fathers saw in 1700 does not necessarily mean the same thing in the year 2009. That is why they allowed the process of Amendments.



Well then we would be Europe wouldn't we?



It has EVERYTHING to do with Amendments. The founding fathers recognized that what they saw then would not necessarily be the same in later years so they ALLOWED amendments to happen in the constitution. Thus making it a LIVING DOCUMENT that could be changed and added to.

By "living document" I'm not referring to the amendment process. I'm referring precisely to what Wessexman is talking about. Interpreting and re-interpreting ad nauseum until the document becomes meaningless.
 
By "living document" I'm not referring to the amendment process. I'm referring precisely to what Wessexman is talking about. Interpreting and re-interpreting ad nauseum until the document becomes meaningless.

The amendment process is what makes it a living document though. And interpretation is what made it so women have equal rights as well as blacks.

Are you saying you don't ever want it interpreted?

Or are you just saying you don't want it interpreted in a way YOU don't like?
 
The amendment process is what makes it a living document though.

Again, I'm not referring to the amendment process. The Constitution would be worthless without the amendment process.

And interpretation is what made it so women have equal rights as well as blacks.

14th...

Are you saying you don't ever want it interpreted?

Or are you just saying you don't want it interpreted in a way YOU don't like?

I'm saying it should be interpreted strictly and the way the founders intended and amended more frequently when warranted.
 
Ummm just to let you know what the founding fathers saw in 1700 does not necessarily mean the same thing in the year 2009. That is why they allowed the process of Amendments.
Amendments are different. We, or at least I'm, are talking about judicial activism. Judges treating the existing constitution as guidelines with words and phrases to be reinterpreted willy nilly to fit particular social platforms ie randomly abortion is covered by the right to privacy or happiness despite all tradition and precedent.

Well then we would be Europe wouldn't we?
You'd have the same kind of activist state they do, yes.


It has EVERYTHING to do with Amendments. The founding fathers recognized that what they saw then would not necessarily be the same in later years so they ALLOWED amendments to happen in the constitution. Thus making it a LIVING DOCUMENT that could be changed and added to.
We are talking about judges and judicial activism. Amendments come from the legislature and people not from judges.
 
The amendment process is what makes it a living document though. And interpretation is what made it so women have equal rights as well as blacks.
So? This is a common liberal problem, a confusion of means and ends. Just because the ends are good doesn't mean we should support such dangerous means as making Scotus a liberal committee on public safety that can redefine the constitution as it likes.

Are you saying you don't ever want it interpreted?

Or are you just saying you don't want it interpreted in a way YOU don't like?
I think he's saying he wants it interpreted strictly and originally.

The most important part of this is the interpretation of almost all the FF's, even the likes of Hamilton, that what was not granted was reserved to the states and individuals. As Hamilton said, a bill of rights was not needed; free speech did not need protection because the constitution grants no power for the feds to take it away.
 
Are they asking for government loans?

The government wasn't going to give them any loads but they were going to give them tax breaks.

Senate cuts movie industry tax break from stimulus bill - Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Washington -- The motion picture industry's record-setting month at the box office may have cost it $246 million in tax breaks, as the Senate on Tuesday stripped a provision from the economic stimulus bill that critics derided as an unnecessary Hollywood bailout.

In denying the tax breaks on new film projects, senators cited the $1.03-billion haul from movie ticket sales in January, a 19% year-over-year increase, according to industry tracking firm Media by Numbers.

"They had their best January ever," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who led the charge against the tax breaks.
 
The amendment process is what makes it a living document though. And interpretation is what made it so women have equal rights as well as blacks.

Are you saying you don't ever want it interpreted?

Or are you just saying you don't want it interpreted in a way YOU don't like?

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449
 
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449

Amen, brother.
 
Re: Beyond AIG: A bill to let Big Government set your salary

What a joke... How does Barney Frank keep getting re-elected? If I lived in Massachusetts I would be absolutely mortified.

Thats what I keep asking myself. What type of people live there?
 
Back
Top Bottom