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 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 174

Thread: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

  1. #121
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    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.
    its kind of impossible to be a literal Constitutionalist in 2011, as the thing was written in 1787.

  2. #122
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by jgarden47 View Post
    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.

    African American - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    it looks like you pulled the numbers from Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how that alters the fact that blacks voted in several states?

    ...State constitutions protecting voting rights for blacks included those of Delaware (1776), [5] Maryland (1776), [6] New Hampshire (1784), [7] and New York (1777). [8] (Constitution signer Rufus King declared that in New York, “a citizen of color was entitled to all the privileges of a citizen. . . . [and] entitled to vote.”) [9] Pennsylvania also extended such rights in her 1776 constitution, [10] as did Massachusetts in her 1780 constitution. [11]...

    As a result of these provisions, early American towns such as Baltimore had more blacks than whites voting in elections; [13] and when the proposed US Constitution was placed before citizens in 1787 and 1788, it was ratified by both black and white voters in a number of States. [14]... Additionally, blacks in many early States not only had the right to vote but also the right to hold office. [17]
    in addition, free blacks could vote in many of the states that also allowed slavery, it wasn't until after the Founders Generation had passed, for example, that North Carolina limited the franchise to whites (in 1835)


    History is fun.

  3. #123
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:17 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,330
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    it looks like you pulled the numbers from Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how that alters the fact that blacks voted in several states?



    in addition, free blacks could vote in many of the states that also allowed slavery, it wasn't until after the Founders Generation had passed, for example, that North Carolina limited the franchise to whites (in 1835)


    History is fun.
    Just to make the point: Wikipedia is at least as good a source, probably better than FreeRepublic. You also seem to have not understood the point made by the guy you quoted. History is fun, but you have not shown a great knowledge of it in this thread.
    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. #124
    Frankernaut peepnklown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-16-15 @ 04:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    607

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    It would have been nice if the OP would have provided some examples to support the term, Literal Constitutionalist and Spirit of the Law.
    I concur with Post#16.
    Post#18 is a good example of providing ‘examples.’
    'The whole universe is going to die!'

  5. #125
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,905

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    I disagree, the first half of the statement was a sufficient reason to be armed not a necessary reason and the USSC agreed with what just about every legal scholar and most of the public felt on the subject.
    Again, you miss the point. In a discussion of taking the Constitution literally word for word, there are some people who feel that current interpretations of the Second Amendment conveniently ignore the first half of the sentence. They are taking it word for word and claiming that it applies to members of an organized militia. Far too often in these discussion of literalism, we see it only as a conservative issue - I am pointing this out as evidence that some on the other side see at least one issue associated with te Constitution as NOT being properly interpreted if we take it literally.

    This entire idea of corporations being extended rights of individual citizens is another. A literalist can look at the first three words of the document and see it is talking about WE THE PEOPLE. The First Amendment has language which specifically talks about the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE. The First Amendment, like the Second, is made up of only one sentence.

    It is NOT my intent to argue the merits of either of these positions here to derail the thread. It is only my intent to show that the idea of a literal interpretation of the Constitution can also favor the views of some on the left and it is not only a rightist crusade.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  6. #126
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
    YES, I am a Constitutional Literalist. I always have been and always will be.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
    Then maybe those of us who do care just need to be a little more "forceful" in our push to get things back on track. The Tea Partiers CLAIMED they were going to start changing the system, but I've heard little out of them about that in the last six months.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
    We may be a minority, but we are a group that should be willing to do anything and everything to make sure this issue gets corrected.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
    Yes I do have some magic wands to wave. Quite a few, as do many of the other who agree with me. They come in a number of different flavors.....

    9mm, .45ACP, .40S&W, 5.56mm NATO, 7.62mm NATO, etc....
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
    No. I just view the world from a very different place than most people do. I long ago realized that all the pretty, happy, joyful stuff in the spiritual world is crap and nothing more. It's the bright bunting placed on the coffin to make people forget there's a dead body inside it. The world is a cruel, nasty, vile place where only the Strong survive. Always has been. We just put up this bunting called "civilization" to try and hide that from our eyes on a daily basis.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
    Who's talking about voting as a way to change things?

    You have to realize that my preference would be to go back to that tarring and feathering, drawing and quartering, pillarying day and age.

    I would suggest it's actually the other way around. Anyone who self-identifies as a Liberal or who has ever voted for a Democrat should be disallowed from owning firearms.
    So let me see if I can sort this out. You claim to be a literal Constitutionalist, yet support the removal of 2nd amendment rights for Democrats and those who vote for them?
    You also claim that the strong are the ones who survive, yet fail to realize you're in a far weaker position than the rest of us. If it came to violence, I'm quite sure you and whoever fell in at your side would be easily defeated by the rest of the people unwilling to live in your form of government. In fact the notion of Civilization and its existence is the only thing keeping you alive if it were true that without it we'd resort to violence over these issues.

    The US constitution also makes no mention of an Air Force, clearly its existence is illegal. Also in Article 1 Section 9 it reads "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" yet you would make it illegal for anyone who has ever voted democrat to own a firearm, that is a ex post facto law, punishing someone for committing a crime or act that they committed while that action was still legal. Also the 14th amendment provides for "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Therefore to deny all liberals their guns would require a trail of each and every one of them, plus it would be a violation of the concept of equal protection under the law.

    The 8th Amendment also bars cruel and unusual punishment, something I believe tar and feathering qualifies as. But that also highlights the problem of literal translation, who's to say what is cruel and isn't cruel? Its not a work that can be taken literally where all people who read it agree on its meaning, for example the word "five" would be something we'd all agree on by taking it literally to mean five.

    Its such a weak argument it literally makes its own counter argument.

  7. #127
    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 Redress View Post
    Just to make the point: Wikipedia is at least as good a source, probably better than FreeRepublic. You also seem to have not understood the point made by the guy you quoted. History is fun, but you have not shown a great knowledge of it in this thread.
    He tends to skew hsitory and other things through the lense of his ideaology, and then get smug about his misunderstandings.

    But, whatchagonnado?

    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.

  8. #128
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    The US constitution also makes no mention of an Air Force, clearly its existence is illegal.
    The "Air Force" started out as the Army Air Corp, so it is covered under the Constitution and in no way illegal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    Also in Article 1 Section 9 it reads "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" yet you would make it illegal for anyone who has ever voted democrat to own a firearm, that is a ex post facto law, punishing someone for committing a crime or act that they committed while that action was still legal. Also the 14th amendment provides for "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Therefore to deny all liberals their guns would require a trail of each and every one of them, plus it would be a violation of the concept of equal protection under the law.
    He is over the top, what did you expect?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    The 8th Amendment also bars cruel and unusual punishment, something I believe tar and feathering qualifies as.
    The practice was never an official punishment in the United States, but a form of vigilante justice. So it does not apply at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    But that also highlights the problem of literal translation, who's to say what is cruel and isn't cruel? Its not a work that can be taken literally where all people who read it agree on its meaning, for example the word "five" would be something we'd all agree on by taking it literally to mean five.
    The 8th amendment literally translated still means exactly the same thing. You are trying to reference something that is subjective and left for the courts to decide. If a punishment is found to be cruel and unusual punishment, it is said to be so by the courts. Then it would be found unconstitutional and removed as such.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    Its such a weak argument it literally makes its own counter argument.
    So far the argument you present is weak as all that you have shown is Tiger is over the top.
    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.

  9. #129
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,400

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Air Force is illegal because it's not in the constitution? Really??

    Damn, sometimes you just know you're on the internet.

  10. #130
    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?

    I had posted: 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.
    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.
    This is an example of one's literal reading (interpretation) vs. a common different literal (interpretation) reading. So who is it that thinks literal reading is possible?

Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... 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
  •