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 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 174

Thread: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

  1. #101
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    07-17-12 @ 08:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    439

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    that is incorrect - blacks voted in several early states. but of course your public education never taught you that .
    My "limited" public school education tells me that in 1790, blacks represented 20% of the population in America and 92% were slaves. That translates into approximately 30 000 free blacks (men, women and children) throughout the nation. By 1860, 89% of America's blacks were still slaves.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American
    Last edited by jgarden47; 12-08-11 at 02:27 PM.

  2. #102
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,526

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    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.
    You are correct, I got you two mixed up. Teach me to log on after being up all night.

    OK Red, I think you are right on this.
    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.

  3. #103
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:11 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    You are correct, I got you two mixed up. Teach me to log on after being up all night.

    OK Red, I think you are right on this.
    You doubted me. I am hurt.
    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.

  4. #104
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,526

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    You doubted me. I am hurt.
    I know, I should be flogged.
    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. #105
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by OhIsee.Then View Post
    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.
    Ah yes. The fallacious militia argument. The militia is one of many reasons to allow for an armed populace, it is a secondary thought independent of the main clause which states that the right shall not be infringed. In other words without the militia clause the amendment is still complete in it's context. Have a nice day.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  6. #106
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by whysoserious View Post
    No. First of all, I am not sure it is even possible to be a literal Constitutionalist - as anything written requires interpretation, and almost any text can be interpreted differently. Secondly, when interpreting writing, intent has to be taken into consideration, and anyone who is a strict Constitutionalist fails on that front.
    I am going to have to completely disagree with you here. I am assuming "literal constitutionalism" means you favor textualism when interpreting the constitution.

    Of course different people can in fact interpret the ordinary meaning of the words in the constitution differently. Think about it, the constitution is a document that limits the powers of the government, therefore a person necessarily must invoke some form of political morality when interpreting the constitution. The correct interpretation of the Constitution requires us to interpret it morally. People have different morals, and therefore the words of the constitution will be interpreted differently based on ones political morality.

    Also, interpreting the writing of the consitution does not require intent. In fact, intent is a non-textual source. If you use intent, you are no longer interpreting the constitution, you are attempting to interpret what the writers of the constitution thought they were writing and then trying to decide how you think they would have applied what they wrote to a concrete case. It entirely ignores what is actually written. Intent actually will rqeuire a stricter form of "interpretting" the constitution. You are bound by what the people who wrote the document thought. Remember the writers of the 14th amdendment. Did they think that would apply to cases like Brown v Board of ed.? Roe v wade? Textualism does not fall into the trap of "strict" consitutionalism as you suggest, in fact it is just the opposite, original intent does.

  7. #107
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    MidRighter, I don't know how many ways I can explain that the constitution doesn't actually function how you want it to. You can say you want it to work that way, but you really can't say that it does. You'd basically need to overturn the majority if supreme court decisions that deal with economics and trade. The "abuses" that you point out... that's just making laws. You may not agree with them, but if you take issue with that much of American policy, maybe you're in the wrong country.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Ah yes. The fallacious militia argument. The militia is one of many reasons to allow for an armed populace, it is a secondary thought independent of the main clause which states that the right shall not be infringed. In other words without the militia clause the amendment is still complete in it's context. Have a nice day.
    And yet the constitution makes other references to militias. It clearly expects these armed members of the populace to be organized that way. Each state is presumed to be keeping track of all of these folks with guns, and keeping them disciplined. Those people who fit the description of "gun nuts" are completely outside of what the constitution envisions. That's why the well regulated militia part is in there, to keep those people well regulated. That's why the right to keep guns is protected. Point out any other part of the constitution that is just poetic and doesn't mean anything. Go ahead.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  8. #108
    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 LaMidRighter View Post
    Ah yes. The fallacious militia argument. The militia is one of many reasons to allow for an armed populace, it is a secondary thought independent of the main clause which states that the right shall not be infringed. In other words without the militia clause the amendment is still complete in it's context. Have a nice day.
    Why do you think the words well regulated militia are there? Meaningless? Or should those words have any connection to what comes after?

    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.

  9. #109
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    MidRighter, I don't know how many ways I can explain that the constitution doesn't actually function how you want it to. You can say you want it to work that way, but you really can't say that it does. You'd basically need to overturn the majority if supreme court decisions that deal with economics and trade. The "abuses" that you point out... that's just making laws. You may not agree with them, but if you take issue with that much of American policy, maybe you're in the wrong country.
    Appeal to the court is not a good argument. Many decisions coming out of appeals courts and the SCOTUS have been reversed over time meaning they were not constitutionally sound to begin with. The fact is that the constitution was intended to be the alpha and omega of all proper law and does not function that way due to poor statesmen over the years. This is inarguable from a historical perspective as well as an honest legal one.



    And yet the constitution makes other references to militias. It clearly expects these armed members of the populace to be organized that way. Each state is presumed to be keeping track of all of these folks with guns, and keeping them disciplined. Those people who fit the description of "gun nuts" are completely outside of what the constitution envisions. That's why the well regulated militia part is in there, to keep those people well regulated. That's why the right to keep guns is protected. Point out any other part of the constitution that is just poetic and doesn't mean anything. Go ahead.
    This is a severe mis interpretation. At the time of writing regulate meant to "make regular" meaning anything from holding drills to maintaining the means of defense should the militia be called up. The militia as well had no specific designation other than all able bodied males 18-40, seeing that people don't have to give up their guns for attaining age 41 and in the days of the founding merchant ships had full cannon armament I'd say that the constitution is on my side here.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #110
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Penn's Woods
    Last Seen
    09-01-12 @ 09:09 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,984

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    This is a severe mis interpretation. At the time of writing regulate meant to "make regular" meaning anything from holding drills to maintaining the means of defense should the militia be called up. The militia as well had no specific designation other than all able bodied males 18-40, seeing that people don't have to give up their guns for attaining age 41 and in the days of the founding merchant ships had full cannon armament I'd say that the constitution is on my side here.
    With or without the 2nd amendment, congress has no enumerated power that would authorize it to restrict or regulate ownership of guns by the citizens of the several states.

Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... 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
  •