• 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!

Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?


  • Total voters
    40
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.
 
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'
 
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.
 
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.

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.

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.

Literally interpretation is impossible.

Only for people who want to reinterpret for their own gains and fools.
 
Last edited:
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.

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?
 
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:
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."

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.

That is what an activist approach to judging the constitution is.

Agreed.

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. :doh

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.

This is simply untrue. Everything our government does must be vetted through the constitution.

Like tax money bail outs for private company's?

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.
 
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?
 
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.

That's a lot of words you put in my mouth right there. My purpose here is an accurate understanding of the constitution, and an understanding of constitutional law. I most certainly do not want it to "continue to be ignored." I am informing you that in many cases, it is not ignored. As I said before, the commerce clause is often the center of these discussions, but the commerce clause actually isn't used in all sorts of insane ways. It's used is one, consistent way. And that is to regulate commerce that affects people in multiple states. Those who argue that there is no textual basis for its uses are simply wrong. And to desire a different direction means to oppose vast amounts of American law and would have far reaching implications that I think most who make these assertions do not consider or are prepared to accept.

If you want to talk about a place where the constitution is being ignored, then I would direct you towards the massive infringements of the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments that are routine in enforcement of the war on drugs and in terrorist investigations. You want to protect the constitution? That's a much better place to start than in meritless arguments about taxation.

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.

I make no such claim. And you should know better than to attribute massive generalizations to someone who isn't making them. My point is that someone who is going to make a claim about constitutionality should research their point before they make it. Don't just spout "I think it means this". Find out what it actually means. And if you're going to say "it should mean this", have some proof to back it up. Don't just rely on a hyperbolic assertion that "the founders meant this, not that", or just an opinion. Expert knowledge is not required. A scholarly effort is.

The rest of your assertions, about taxation and spending, that's a perfect example. Such things are ENTIRELY within the scope of congress' enumerated powers. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1. The only pertinent limitation on taxation is that it must be uniform, and congress can spend however they want to provide for the general welfare of the United States. That's what the text says. There are, of course, numerous limitations that have been held in various supreme court cases. If you want to claim that one of them supports your position, go ahead. But you have to do the research and find them first. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air.
 
That's a lot of words you put in my mouth right there. My purpose here is an accurate understanding of the constitution, and an understanding of constitutional law. I most certainly do not want it to "continue to be ignored." I am informing you that in many cases, it is not ignored.

So what? That is not what we are discussing.

As I said before, the commerce clause is often the center of these discussions, but the commerce clause actually isn't used in all sorts of insane ways. It's used is one, consistent way. And that is to regulate commerce that affects people in multiple states. Those who argue that there is no textual basis for its uses are simply wrong. And to desire a different direction means to oppose vast amounts of American law and would have far reaching implications that I think most who make these assertions do not consider or are prepared to accept.

What does the commerce clause have to do with anything I said or the responses to others?

If you want to talk about a place where the constitution is being ignored, then I would direct you towards the massive infringements of the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments that are routine in enforcement of the war on drugs and in terrorist investigations. You want to protect the constitution? That's a much better place to start than in meritless arguments about taxation.

Nothing meritless about my statement.

I make no such claim. And you should know better than to attribute massive generalizations to someone who isn't making them. My point is that someone who is going to make a claim about constitutionality should research their point before they make it. Don't just spout "I think it means this". Find out what it actually means. And if you're going to say "it should mean this", have some proof to back it up. Don't just rely on a hyperbolic assertion that "the founders meant this, not that", or just an opinion. Expert knowledge is not required. A scholarly effort is.

Yes you did...

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. - Paschendale

The rest of your assertions, about taxation and spending, that's a perfect example. Such things are ENTIRELY within the scope of congress' enumerated powers. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1. The only pertinent limitation on taxation is that it must be uniform, and congress can spend however they want to provide for the general welfare of the United States. That's what the text says. There are, of course, numerous limitations that have been held in various supreme court cases. If you want to claim that one of them supports your position, go ahead. But you have to do the research and find them first. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air.

Don't have to post anything as it is an excellent example.
 
... but blackdog, he believed that anything not specifically written there cannot be executed by the federal government. It's not a breach of his own philosophy. It was a breach of the constitution to him. That's how he felt about it. If you are against gun control because you think it's not constitutional, if I became a senator and proposed a bill to ban all guns, and it passed, to you that's not a breach of your philosophy, it's a breech of the document. (note I am anti gun control, that's just an example)

On an unrelated note, not directed at blackdog but some others in the early pages of this thread, I can't ****ing stand people who say the constitution is violated, but don't know what anything other than the 1st, 2nd, and part of the 5th that allows them to say "I plead the fifth" is. What's the elastic clause? No clue, but Obama sure is shredding up that there document written by John Hancovk in 1776!
 
... but blackdog, he believed that anything not specifically written there cannot be executed by the federal government. It's not a breach of his own philosophy. It was a breach of the constitution to him. That's how he felt about it. If you are against gun control because you think it's not constitutional, if I became a senator and proposed a bill to ban all guns, and it passed, to you that's not a breach of your philosophy, it's a breech of the document. (note I am anti gun control, that's just an example)

On an unrelated note, not directed at blackdog but some others in the early pages of this thread, I can't ****ing stand people who say the constitution is violated, but don't know what anything other than the 1st, 2nd, and part of the 5th that allows them to say "I plead the fifth" is. What's the elastic clause? No clue, but Obama sure is shredding up that there document written by John Hancovk in 1776!

Thomas Jefferson as much as I like his thoughts was not someone who wrote or even helped write the Constitution. His idea's were part of it, but how he viewed it personally is of no real consequence as far as the law goes. Obviously he did not think enough of his own philosophy to circumvent what is not enumerated in the Constitution. So no matter how he felt about it, he set a dangerous precedent that we are still seeing to this day. I absolutely disagree with what he did, should not have been done.

Well I disagree with your example. A bill to ban all guns would be unconstitutional because it would infringe on our 2nd amendment rights, not because it is not enumerated.

I see what you are saying, I just do not agree.
 
Last edited:
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.
You couldn't be more wrong.
 
Nope, in fact I think there's a lot of the Constitution that needs to be seriously updated.
Have your Representatives propose amendments.
 
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.
Now, your premise is incorrect and you don't understand what a constitutionalist is. Hopefully you didn't set the thread up. A Constitutionalist is about original intent. So you had better redefine your thread.
 
Still waiting for an answer here.
He's playing games by excluding the parts superceded by amendments. Otherwise the document is in full force as amended. The Constitution must be understood within the boundaries of the intent of those whose ratified it, to include the amendments. The whole notion of the Constitution without the amendments is silly anyway. The Constitution is everything, and must be viewed as stated above.
 
He's playing games by excluding the parts superceded by amendments. Otherwise the document is in full force as amended. The Constitution must be understood within the boundaries of the intent of those whose ratified it, to include the amendments. The whole notion of the Constitution without the amendments is silly anyway. The Constitution is everything, and must be viewed as stated above.

American, cool avatar.

Anyway, I don't think there is a definition of what a "constitutionalist" is. You will never hear a Judge/Justice or anyone with a law degree refer to himself as a "constitutionalist". I think that has such a ridiculously broad meaning. That could just mean someone who is in favor of the American system of a strict constitution keeping things in order, as opposed to the British idea of following English common law to create legal precedents.

Your belief that it should be based on original intent. Framers' intent = an originalist. That is what Scalia is, for example.


Blackdog, so we should not have gotten Louisiana? Do you not know the historical context around that? We got it at a complete bargain because Napoleon needed money to continue his wars in Europe (it was formerly Spanish territory, but as you should know Napoleon took Spain). I agree with Jefferson's precedent. You can interpret meanings out of the words of the document to get things done. President can make a treaty with a foreign power - how else would we acquire foreign land?
 
Blackdog, so we should not have gotten Louisiana? Do you not know the historical context around that? We got it at a complete bargain because Napoleon needed money to continue his wars in Europe (it was formerly Spanish territory, but as you should know Napoleon took Spain). I agree with Jefferson's precedent. You can interpret meanings out of the words of the document to get things done. President can make a treaty with a foreign power - how else would we acquire foreign land?

Should we have gotten it or not is irrelevant in that hind site is 20/20. At the time he should have gone through with the amendment process which could have worked. His problem was he thought it would take to long. It is irrelevant to whether we could have gotten it later or not. He went against his own judgement for what amounts to a "field expedient" which set a bad precedent in my opinion.

So you are basically saying to hell with the spirit of the law, as long as you agree with it.

Like I said, completely disagree.
 
Words mean things. Reading something in the context in which it was written is the "literal interpretation." Reading things into something to infer something that wasn't suggested by the author is dishonest and renders the Constitution both ineffectual and meaningless. The letter and "spirit" of the law are not mutually exclusive and anyone suggesting such is doing so in order to "interpret" words to mean something besides what was intended when they were set to paper.
 
Two things -

1) It doesn't matter who has failed whom. That's a meaningless digression.

It matters just fine. If you go in showing yourself to be competent and have since failed to understand what you signed you have failed yourself. The other party didn't fail nor did they didn't take advantage of you.

2) You don't know what you're talking about with respect to contract law at all. One of the basic tenets of contract law is that if one or both parties have materially different interpretations of a contract, the party that is innocently mistaken usually wins out (if both are innocently mistaken, the contract can be voided).

It is the responsibility of both parties to understand a contract. Going about proving you have no idea what in the contract is usually a game that goes no where as the court will understand the truth that of the responsibility. The reason for what you talk about is for when a party is trying to take advantage of other party like if you go to mental ward and get a contract with one of them. It is not for when both parties come in showing to be competent members and one side later on decides they had no idea what was going on. It is usually easy to prove in such a case they are in fact competent.

Moreover, where certain provisions of a contract are vague (as is emphatically the case with respect to the Constitution, which is only marginally a contract in any case) that can be grounds for either annulment of the contract, or reinterpretation by a judge.

Read above. Proving you are incompetent is hardly an easy thing to manage.
 
Last edited:
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.
Those who omit or ignore the "spirit of the law" are, IMO, morally dead.
never said I was a politician
 
Back
Top Bottom