View Poll Results: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

Voters
84. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    51 60.71%
  • No.

    33 39.29%
Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 174

Thread: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

  1. #91
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,596
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
    Ok, so which am I, Aderleth? I am a strong proponent of not only a literal reading of the document, but a removal of most of the amendments after the Bill of Rights.
    Sir, you are worse than delusional, you are scary..what's worse, there are many around with a similar philosophy.
    A literal interpretation of an old imperfectly written vague document...insanity itself !

  2. #92
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by conservativeguy View Post
    Good grief, I was hoping he was joking.
    LOL. Maybe he meant the 19th amendment.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  3. #93
    Politically Correct

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,851
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Simple question. Are you a Literal Constitutionalist? IE Someone that believes in interpreting the US Constitution in a literal word for word way and leaving out the Spirit of the Law.

    Poll is open.
    No, that would be ridiculous. If the Constitution had been meant to be read literally, it would be MUCH more detailed. It is a framework, that is all.
    (avatar by Thomas Nast)

  4. #94
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,531

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Now you are rewriting history. When you have to do that to defend your point, it has failed miserably. 55 people where involved in forming our constitution, 3 people(most likely) wrote the Federalist papers, and the primary author, among other things, opposed the bill of rights. So no, the federalist papers are not the end all of constitutional discussion. Learn our history before lecturing on the topic.
    I don't think he is Red...

    The U.S. Constitution is the work of several men, directly and indirectly. The three most notable persons whose work influenced the Constitution but who were not involved in its writing are Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine. The group of men involved in the writing of the Constitution are generally referred to as the "framers".

    No single individual wrote it. Twelve of the thirteen states sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention to revise the Articles of Confederation and the entire convention worked on it. After the political questions were hashed out a 'committee of style' was formed to put the ideas into formal words. It is generally accepted that Gouverneur Morris created most of the actual wording included in the final draft from the Committee of Style.

    The original copy of the document is preserved in the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C.

    The person most associated with authoring the US Constitution was James Madison, the fourth President of the United States. Primary Author: James Madison (drafted the Virginia Plan). He is known as "The Father of the Constitution." James Madison wrote the Constitution in 1787. The constitution wasn't passed until 1788.



    Read more: Who wrote the US Constitution

    As for Hamilton...

    Hamilton's Plan

    On June 18 Alexander Hamilton presented his own ideal plan of government. Erudite and polished, the speech, nevertheless, failed to win a following. It went too far. Calling the British government "the best in the world," Hamilton proposed a model strikingly similar an executive to serve during good behavior or life with veto power over all laws; a senate with members serving during good behavior; the legislature to have power to pass "all laws whatsoever." Hamilton later wrote to Washington that the people were now willing to accept "something not very remote from that which they have lately quitted." What the people had "lately quitted," of course, was monarchy. Some members of the convention fully expected the country to turn in this direction. Hugh Williamson of North Carolina, a wealthy physician, declared that it was "pretty certain . . . that we should at some time or other have a king." Newspaper accounts appeared in the summer of 1787 alleging that a plot was under way to invite the second son of George III, Frederick, Duke of York, the secular bishop of Osnaburgh in Prussia, to become "king of the United States."
    - Constitution of the United States - A History
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  5. #95
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:55 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,341
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    BD, your article proves me right. Many people wrote the constitution, 3 wrote the federalist papers, and the main writer of the federalist papers disagreed with the bill of rights.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  6. #96
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    It is a binding legal document and as such does not change with time. What was written and ratified is absolute and just like any law, should not have it's legal status altered due to personal opinions/interpretations. Theft will be theft unless the legal process chooses to redefine it. If someone believes that stealing from a rich man is not "theft" they are still bound by the law and will be punished accordingly. The Constitution is our highest Law and should be treated as a legal document. I believe there are things that need to be interpreted from the Constitution, but the meaning itself should not change without going through the proper amendment process.
    Of course it does, and we have history to show this. The fonding fathers could have never really considered larry Flint, or Same sex marriage, or abortion. Yet, those things came up, and we had to use the words written to discover intent and how the law was to be applied. There is also very little likelihood that we see the 2nd amendment today as they did then, and people do in fact interpret it differently. Many are sure there vision is better, superior, and more in line with the original intent, to the point of being quite indignebt about it. But that's the point. People read the same thing and can't see how others see it differently. the fact is, they do.

    Laws are written and yet cannot plan for every contingency, and how that law might apply to somehtng they did not consider. How the people who decide see it makes all the difference. It is a mistake to think anything can be written so clearly that everyone will always get the same meaning.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #97
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Everything written must be interpreted. Even something as simple as the Commandment "Thou shalt not Kill." How many different ways do we justify that action? We kill animals for food. We kill enemy combatants in War or conflicts. We kill inmates sentenced to death. We kill another person in an act of self defense. We kill pets that are too sick and old. The Commandment doesn't specify humans or mitigating circumstances.

    The government is regulated by a system defined by the U.S. Constitution, which serves as the country's supreme legal document. It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law". Therefore it is the Law that must continually be amended and interpreted in every set of new circumstances using the Constitution as the bases for legal argument, since it is comprised of our founding principles.

  8. #98
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,784

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    No, that would be ridiculous. If the Constitution had been meant to be read literally, it would be MUCH more detailed. It is a framework, that is all.
    Hmm...good point.
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  9. #99
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MI and AZ
    Last Seen
    03-15-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,581

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Not a literalist, but I am an originalist. A literalist will usually not agree with minor tests on basic rights whereas an originalist usually subscribes to the necessary and proper clause. I do not usually entertain "because we can" or "because we need it" arguments without proper also being part of the equation.

    For instance:
    ...........
    Gun Control:
    The founders were very clear that the right to keep and bear is not to be infringed. This is not therefore an issue that should not be confusing unless confusion is the intent. That being said.
    Auto-Weapon bans - these are absurd, I have no problem with a simple licensing and testing compromise. The current law regarding these weapons is not necessary or proper, convoluted, and thus needs to be simplified.
    General gun bans- Are not necessary or proper and should be struck down.
    Conceal Carry Law- In general I have no problem with this, however some states make the permit process nearly impossible and should simplify.

    .
    When I read the complete but one sentence admendment "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." I'm reading the words "A well regulated Militia,...; and, in your comments there is no consideration of this. So what does the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..." part intend? Interesting how hard it is to interpret and agree on the the written word, with and without the understanding the intent of the architecture of the whole thing.
    Last edited by OhIsee.Then; 12-08-11 at 01:59 PM.

  10. #100
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    No, that would be ridiculous. If the Constitution had been meant to be read literally, it would be MUCH more detailed. It is a framework, that is all.
    Yes. It can't possibly be otherwise. The act of reading words is to interpret them.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •