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 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 715161718 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 174

Thread: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

  1. #161
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    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.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  2. #162
    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 Paschendale View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    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.
    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. #163
    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?

    ... 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!

  4. #164
    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 irviding View Post
    ... 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 by Black Dog; 12-12-11 at 03:58 AM.
    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. #165
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,301

    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.
    You couldn't be more wrong.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  6. #166
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,301

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Nope, in fact I think there's a lot of the Constitution that needs to be seriously updated.
    Have your Representatives propose amendments.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  7. #167
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,301

    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.
    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.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  8. #168
    Sage
    ksu_aviator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Fort Worth Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:41 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by ksu_aviator View Post
    What part of the Constitution doesn't apply to today and why not amend it?
    Still waiting for an answer here.
    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.”

  9. #169
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,301

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by ksu_aviator View Post
    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 who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  10. #170
    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 American View Post
    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?

Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 715161718 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
  •