View Poll Results: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

84. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    51 60.71%
  • No.

    33 39.29%
Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 8161718
Results 171 to 174 of 174

Thread: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

  1. #171
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    South Florida
    Last Seen

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by irviding View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  2. #172
    Student Blackstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    05-21-17 @ 07:40 AM
    Very Conservative

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    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.

  3. #173
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 02:51 PM

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    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 by Henrin; 12-14-11 at 09:23 PM.

  4. #174

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:41 PM
    Blog Entries

    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.
    Those who omit or ignore the "spirit of the law" are, IMO, morally dead.
    never said I was a politician

Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 8161718

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts