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 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 174

Thread: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

  1. #151
    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 Blackdog View Post
    The "Air Force" started out as the Army Air Corp, so it is covered under the Constitution and in no way illegal.

    The practice was never an official punishment in the United States, but a form of vigilante justice. So it does not apply at all.

    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.

    So far the argument you present is weak as all that you have shown is Tiger is over the top.
    I think you destroyed your own argument in your third point. The fact that it takes a court to decide what something in the Constitution means it cannot be taken literally because there is no literal definition of the word "cruel" is something which is seen through the eyes of an observer. If the document could be taken literally there would be no room for disagreement, and thus no need for a court to decide disagreements because there would be no disagreement. Even my example earlier about a word like "five" having a literal meaning isn't entirely true either its also subjective to people's personal interpretations. For example if I said "I have 5 apples" whos to say what Constitutes an "apple" and what doesn't. Perhaps you could ask a botanist, but which one how do you now his information is good, what if another botanist decides this particular type of fruit isn't an apple but something else.

    It sounds crazy but its the truth, no document can be so perfectly written to only require a literally interpretation especially when its unclear what the authors original intent was or when hundreds of years pass and the world and people change.

    Literally interpretation is impossible.

  2. #152
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,325

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeezy View Post
    This thread is the equivalent of someone going "I love pizza" and being asked "...BUT DO YOU LITERALLY LOVE PIZZA?"
    Spud probably does. Just sayin'

  3. #153
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    08-21-13 @ 03:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    22

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    No that is not true. All those things were amended legally with the process set down in the Constitution.

    Talk about has no idea.
    Nope, not true. You right wingers claim to know everything about the constitution, yet you really don't. There's is nothing in the constitution that allows for purchasing or taking foreign territory. Jefferson had to use an activist approach and use the President's treaty powers to get it. That = activist. He specifically said himself it was a tough decision but he had to do it for the country.

  4. #154
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,502

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    I think you destroyed your own argument in your third point. The fact that it takes a court to decide what something in the Constitution means it cannot be taken literally because there is no literal definition of the word "cruel" is something which is seen through the eyes of an observer.
    That has nothing to do with the Constitution being literal or not. It is what the judiciary is for. Because one word is subjective does not mean the whole Constitution is, jeees.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    If the document could be taken literally there would be no room for disagreement, and thus no need for a court to decide disagreements because there would be no disagreement. Even my example earlier about a word like "five" having a literal meaning isn't entirely true either its also subjective to people's personal interpretations. For example if I said "I have 5 apples" whos to say what Constitutes an "apple" and what doesn't. Perhaps you could ask a botanist, but which one how do you now his information is good, what if another botanist decides this particular type of fruit isn't an apple but something else.
    That has to be the most ridicules argument I have ever heard. Yes arguments will still happen not because of the wording but human nature. People trying to twist things to mean something else like that "apple" argument please, a little common sense goes a long way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    It sounds crazy but its the truth, no document can be so perfectly written to only require a literally interpretation especially when its unclear what the authors original intent was or when hundreds of years pass and the world and people change.
    It sounds crazy because it is. Occam's razor FTW. That is the main problem, it is not unclear, what is unclear is why people want to change the interpretations to means things it does not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    Literally interpretation is impossible.
    Only for people who want to reinterpret for their own gains and fools.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 12-10-11 at 02:16 PM.
    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. #155
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,502

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by irviding View Post
    Nope, not true. You right wingers claim to know everything about the constitution, yet you really don't.
    Please point who here has claimed this??? Was not me.

    Quote Originally Posted by irviding View Post
    There's is nothing in the constitution that allows for purchasing or taking foreign territory. Jefferson had to use an activist approach and use the President's treaty powers to get it. That = activist. He specifically said himself it was a tough decision but he had to do it for the country.
    And if the Constitution says nothing about it, how does this affect the the interpretation of the Constitution? Since when is an "activist approach" deemed unconstitutional? Because a president used a different power granted to him?
    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.

  6. #156
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    08-21-13 @ 03:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    22

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Please point who here has claimed this??? Was not me.



    And if the Constitution says nothing about it, how does this affect the the interpretation of the Constitution? Since when is an "activist approach" deemed unconstitutional? Because a president used a different power granted to him?
    Conservatives such as yourself always complain about "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench". I guarantee you if I took the time to go through all of your almost 11,000 posts, you went after someone for being an activist judge at some point.

    Please read up on your history and your legal knowledge. Jefferson hated himself for going against the very ideas he preached; i.e. strict interpretation of the Constitution, no "stretching the document", etc. Yet to do what was necessary and get Louisiana, he did just that - stretched the constitution, because it was right for the country (though of course no one moved there until the 1840s and it remained totally inhospitable until then). That is what an activist approach to judging the constitution is. A strict constructionist approach would be what people who seldom have legal knowledge would call "a literal constitutionalist". Then there's an originalist, who claims to be able to somehow have the mystic power of determining what the framers intent was.
    Last edited by irviding; 12-11-11 at 03:53 AM.

  7. #157
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,502

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by irviding View Post
    Conservatives such as yourself always complain about "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench". I guarantee you if I took the time to go through all of your almost 11,000 posts, you went after someone for being an activist judge at some point.
    You said...

    You right wingers claim to know everything about the constitution, yet you really don't. - irviding

    What does that have to do with activist judges?

    Again please point out where anyone has said this? Or I have said it at anytime. I never claimed to be an expert on the Constitution, ever. You mite want to reserve the bigoted blanket statements for yourself. Then learn the difference between "knowing everything" and "activist."

    Quote Originally Posted by irviding View Post
    Please read up on your history and your legal knowledge. Jefferson hated himself for going against the very ideas he preached; i.e. strict interpretation of the Constitution, no "stretching the document", etc. Yet to do what was necessary and get Louisiana, he did just that - stretched the constitution, because it was right for the country (though of course no one moved there until the 1840s and it remained totally inhospitable until then).
    He felt that any powers not enumerated in the Constitution were powers not granted to the Fed is absolutely true. He then found a way around that which was more a breach against his own philosophy than that of the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by irviding View Post
    That is what an activist approach to judging the constitution is.
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by irviding View Post
    A strict constructionist approach would be what people who seldom have legal knowledge would call "a literal constitutionalist".
    Absolutely because you can read minds now.

    Quote Originally Posted by irviding View Post
    Then there's an originalist, who claims to be able to somehow have the mystic power of determining what the framers intent was.
    It is not that hard to understand what they were trying to convey. A dictionary from the 1800's, and a little understanding of the history of the time goes a long way.

    Nothing mystical about that.
    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.

  8. #158
    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?

    Irviding and Blackdog, it is rather true that a lot of people who make claims about the constitution, even on this board, don't actually understand how it works. A lot of what's been said in this thread has been people making claims about constitutional law that are just plain false, and their justification is a few cherry picked points, without the greater context of two hundred years of jurisprudence about constitutional law, and an estimated eight thousand supreme court cases that dealt with a constitutional issue.

    That is why I said at the beginning of this thread that there is no such thing as a "literal constitutionalist". The very term implies that many constitutional scholars, lawyers, judges, and legislators are being dishonest in their approach to the constitutional. This is simply untrue. Everything our government does must be vetted through the constitution. If it doesn't fit, someone will say something and oppose it, and they frequently succeed in defeating it. Are there some statutes and rulings that aren't as justified by the constitution as they could be? Of course. But they are a small minority. They should be dealt with (if they can be found, which is, sadly, unlikely), but they are not something particularly to be afraid of.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  9. #159
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,502

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Irviding and Blackdog, it is rather true that a lot of people who make claims about the constitution, even on this board, don't actually understand how it works. A lot of what's been said in this thread has been people making claims about constitutional law that are just plain false, and their justification is a few cherry picked points, without the greater context of two hundred years of jurisprudence about constitutional law, and an estimated eight thousand supreme court cases that dealt with a constitutional issue.
    So what? It is also true that people like you (for example) have an agenda and would like nothing better than the Constitution continued to be ignored.

    So now you make the claim that basically no one can comment on Constitutional law unless they have a law degree and have studied every single Constitutional case in the last 200 years? I mean really. I would say the false thing here is your claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    That is why I said at the beginning of this thread that there is no such thing as a "literal constitutionalist". The very term implies that many constitutional scholars, lawyers, judges, and legislators are being dishonest in their approach to the constitutional.
    Because they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    This is simply untrue. Everything our government does must be vetted through the constitution.
    Like tax money bail outs for private company's?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    If it doesn't fit, someone will say something and oppose it, and they frequently succeed in defeating it. Are there some statutes and rulings that aren't as justified by the constitution as they could be? Of course. But they are a small minority. They should be dealt with (if they can be found, which is, sadly, unlikely), but they are not something particularly to be afraid of.
    Well that is pretty subjective to say the least.
    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.

  10. #160
    Sage
    ksu_aviator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Fort Worth Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    6,680
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    its kind of impossible to be a literal Constitutionalist in 2011, as the thing was written in 1787.
    What part of the Constitution doesn't apply to today and why not amend it?
    You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 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
  •