• 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
ecofarm said:
I think if someone is gonna go full-literal, the Bible is the way to go. It's FAR more intricate and interesting. Sheer number of pages demands its precedence for absolute madness. Don't short-change yourself, go for the big deal.
Click to expand...

The more time I spend in the Bible, the more I realize how dangerous it is to take literally. It is intricate and interesting. As my faith and understanding of God grows, the more I see things within the Bible that I did not see before and the more I passages read completely differently than they did before. Not to mention, I am not a seven-day, new earth creationist.

The only written things I take literally are my Pilot's Operating Handbook and signs on the golf course that say "Danger - Rattlesnakes"
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
The more time I spend in the Bible, the more I realize how dangerous it is to take literally. It is intricate and interesting. As my faith and understanding of God grows, the more I see things within the Bible that I did not see before and the more I passages read completely differently than they did before. Not to mention, I am not a seven-day, new earth creationist.

The only written things I take literally are my Pilot's Operating Handbook and signs on the golf course that say "Danger - Rattlesnakes"
Click to expand...

Cute, but the Constitution is not comparable to the bible.
 
Henrin said:
molten_dragon said:
No, I'm not. The constitution should be interpreted in whatever way is most beneficial to society.
Click to expand...
Meaning none of it means anything.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Why bother even having a Constitution? Part of its purpose is that it is deemed to be what is best for society, even if society doesn't know it.

In theory, anyway.
 
radcen said:
Exactly. Why bother even having a Constitution? Part of its purpose is that it is deemed to be what is best for society, even if society doesn't know it.

In theory, anyway.
Click to expand...

In theory your idea even falls apart. Only if you ignore the general will of people to demand superiority or control of a system, any system, do you believe your theory. People will always demand what will give them an advantage over others, they will always push their wills in government regardless of what others think, and they will always want power above all else. In your system even in theory it would fall apart.

Government is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense of our rights and our liberty. It is not there to violate our liberty, to give people want they desire, or anything even close to what you have demanded from them.
 
Henrin said:
Its best to look at Madison for the constitution as he will know what his words mean. Hamilton is secondary.
Click to expand...

He would know what he meant by his words, but that doesn't tell us very much about what the other people involved were signing on to. It's very telling that the founders themselves had fights about the meaning of the Constitution within their own lifetimes. Even they didn't agree as to the meaning of what they signed.
 
Aderleth said:
He would know what he meant by his words, but that doesn't tell us very much about what the other people involved were signing on to. It's very telling that the founders themselves had fights about the meaning of the Constitution within their own lifetimes. Even they didn't agree as to the meaning of what they signed.
Click to expand...

What you write and what you sign are not comparable. It is your duty above all else to understand any contract you sign and that includes the constitution itself. If they did so or not is another subject, but this truth should be understood in any thing you sign your name on in agreement. If you don't you have failed yourself, no one has failed you.
 
Redress said:
Wait, you are claiming that 3 people(probably), in expressing their opinions, spoke for every one?
Click to expand...

that was how the people who authored and signed the Constitution viewed it. those were the explanations of the documents themselves.
 
cpwill said:
that was how the people who authored and signed the Constitution viewed it. those were the explanations of the documents themselves.
Click to expand...

Nooooo...that was how 3 people viewed it.
 
Henrin said:
In theory your idea even falls apart. Only if you ignore the general will of people to demand superiority or control of a system, any system, do you believe your theory. People will always demand what will give them an advantage over others, they will always push their wills in government regardless of what others think, and they will always want power above all else. In your system even in theory it would fall apart.

Government is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense of our rights and our liberty. It is not there to violate our liberty, to give people want they desire, or anything even close to what you have demanded from them.
Click to expand...
I read your response 4 times, and all I can say is... What? :confused:
 
LaMidRighter said:
The tenth reserves very specific powers to the federal government and remands those not listed to the states. The tenth has been much abused since the late nineteenth century, the problem being that many politicians have expanded the definition of interstate commerce to include all transactions, the original intent was to settle interstate trade disputes and to serve as a boundry to establish where power stands. Unfortunately post civil war the mentality has become such that the federal is considered the arbiter of power differences and they tend to enhance their own interests.
Click to expand...

See? I was right. It's all about the commerce clause. It's not legal framework that has changed since the nineteenth century, nor is it how the tenth amendment has been applied. It's the commerce that has changed. Local business isn't local anymore. Commerce went from small and primarily intrastate to being interstate. The tenth amendment does not prohibit changes in law to adapt to changes in commerce. The original intent, as you put it, expected horses to be the fastest means of travel, and did not envision the ability to go anywhere in the country, or, more importantly, ship goods anywhere in the country, in a single day.

It's not a post civil war thing. It's a modern technology thing. It was the transcontinental railroad, not the war, that made all the difference. They just happened to take place in the same decade, so it's reasonable to mistake the real cause.

The tenth amendment does reserve specific powers to the federal government. The regulation of trade that exceeds the boundaries of a single state is one of those specific powers. It also has never been abused. The interpretation of the tenth amendment that I'm relaying to you is not a new one. It has been consistently held this way since its ratification. The most succinct statement of this was in US v. Sprague in 1931, but the decision in that case traces its roots all the way back to Martin v. Hunter's Lessee in 1816, which is also a landmark case in showing that federal decisions outweigh state ones in matters that expand beyond that single state. 1816, I might add, was long before the Civil War.

I don't necessarily disagree with your interpretation that the federal government is indeed one of limited power. It is presumed not to be able to do something unless it has specific authorization to do it, and the tenth amendment is one such guarantee of that position. However, your view about the regulation of interstate commerce is unequipped to deal with commerce in the 21st century. If commerce were to settle itself into intrastate again, then the ability of the federal government to regulate it would be severely hampered. But it was not law that changed, but commerce.

What I must staunchly disagree with is your notion that the view of the tenth amendment has changed over time. It hasn't. This is not opinion, but the summation of what dozens of supreme court justices have said in their decisions over the last two centuries. If you want a way to reduce the power of the federal government (something I disagree with, as I see no intrinsic benefit to giving states more power and plenty of detriment), the tenth amendment isn't it.
 
Paschendale said:
See? I was right. It's all about the commerce clause. It's not legal framework that has changed since the nineteenth century, nor is it how the tenth amendment has been applied. It's the commerce that has changed. Local business isn't local anymore. Commerce went from small and primarily intrastate to being interstate. The tenth amendment does not prohibit changes in law to adapt to changes in commerce. The original intent, as you put it, expected horses to be the fastest means of travel, and did not envision the ability to go anywhere in the country, or, more importantly, ship goods anywhere in the country, in a single day.
Click to expand...
One very key thing. While commerce is interstate over a large percentage, certainly moreso than in the early days of the republic there doesn't seem to be a trading dispute. Without the key dispute politicians are simply using the poor excuse that because more commerce is traded that it is subject to federal regulation which does not meet necessary and most of the regs are far from proper.

It's not a post civil war thing. It's a modern technology thing. It was the transcontinental railroad, not the war, that made all the difference. They just happened to take place in the same decade, so it's reasonable to mistake the real cause.
Click to expand...
Actually, the first constitutional abuses came pre civil war which are the main reasons that tensions over slavery ignited into regional fracturing. Tariffs which violated the tenth were levied on southern cotton and northern factories bought the cotton at a sub standard rate as compared to european trading partners. There were more abuses but history is not my strongest subject. Post war the SCOTUS ruled that the states do not have the right to secede which is not found anywhere in the actual constitution and not even interpretable, because of this major loss the next century was set up to water down the constitution with federal immunity to any actual consequence. Wilsonian democracy, the Roosevelts, Nixon, and many other politicians used the expanding federal to circumvent constitutional protections and grossly watered down the ninth and tenth(especially the New Deal and LBJ's Great Society).
The tenth amendment does reserve specific powers to the federal government. The regulation of trade that exceeds the boundaries of a single state is one of those specific powers. It also has never been abused.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is to resolve trade issues, not regulate just anything that crosses state lines. It was a willful misinterpretive process that has excluded the necessary argument of conflict that has led to the current thinking on the amendment. The interpretation of the tenth amendment that I'm relaying to you is not a new one.
It has been consistently held this way since its ratification. The most succinct statement of this was in US v. Sprague in 1931, but the decision in that case traces its roots all the way back to Martin v. Hunter's Lessee in 1816, which is also a landmark case in showing that federal decisions outweigh state ones in matters that expand beyond that single state. 1816, I might add, was long before the Civil War.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect, the founders were for the most part very clear on decentralization within their writings, sure some did want a strong federal but the compromise was to limit the fedgov to it's most minimal effective scope. Later on politicians would bastardize this process.
I don't necessarily disagree with your interpretation that the federal government is indeed one of limited power. It is presumed not to be able to do something unless it has specific authorization to do it, and the tenth amendment is one such guarantee of that position. However, your view about the regulation of interstate commerce is unequipped to deal with commerce in the 21st century.
Click to expand...
Actually, I disagree. Most states are compelled to keep their trading partners happy under free market competitive principles. We actually lose natural leverage when the federal steps in, for example Louisiana cannot get a fair price on oil leases and we have the lowest return on our oil trade but the federal handles that, if say.......California has an oil crunch and did not pay us a fair trade and chose Texas we could leverage Texas easily to withold suppy or change rates because our two states are interdependant on oil, if Cali had a problem they could in theory petition the federal government which would have no choice but to find for Louisiana because California would be involved in preferential trading practices which is constitutionally unsound. Similarly California could withold ag products or Silicone Valley goods if a state were to treat them unfairly etc. The idea is for the most sound trading, not a fully regulated market and as such if a state does have as problem with a federal action the federal is the final arbiter, this is not a good thing as obviously they will often find in their own favor.
If commerce were to settle itself into intrastate again, then the ability of the federal government to regulate it would be severely hampered. But it was not law that changed, but commerce.
Click to expand...
Honestly it comes down to dispute, barring that the federal really should **** off.(no disrespect to you, rather the federal)
What I must staunchly disagree with is your notion that the view of the tenth amendment has changed over time. It hasn't. This is not opinion, but the summation of what dozens of supreme court justices have said in their decisions over the last two centuries. If you want a way to reduce the power of the federal government (something I disagree with, as I see no intrinsic benefit to giving states more power and plenty of detriment), the tenth amendment isn't it.
Click to expand...
Most of the public doesn't really concern itself with the constitution I'm afraid, at least that is my perception. That being said I feel that most people probably don't have a view on the tenth and either generally reject or accept either the federalist or anti-federalist arguments instinctively. As well I will still assert that some politicians on the federal level may still understand the tenth as it was posited and willfully mis-apply it, and I wouldn't be surprised if some have bought the "new view" of said BOR amendment.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Nooooo...that was how 3 people viewed it.
Click to expand...

no, that's how the things' author and the other two who were charged with explaining it did so. those are the conditions and rules set by under which it was voted on - that is the deal that was made. you want to change the deal, then you have to do so according to the rules laid down.
 
cpwill said:
no, that's how the things' author and the other two who were charged with explaining it did so. those are the conditions and rules set by under which it was voted on - that is the deal that was made. you want to change the deal, then you have to do so according to the rules laid down.
Click to expand...

Now you are rewriting history. When you have to do that to defend your point, it has failed miserably. 55 people where involved in forming our constitution, 3 people(most likely) wrote the Federalist papers, and the primary author, among other things, opposed the bill of rights. So no, the federalist papers are not the end all of constitutional discussion. Learn our history before lecturing on the topic.
 
Tigger said:
Ok, so which am I, Aderleth? I am a strong proponent of not only a literal reading of the document, but a removal of most of the amendments after the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
Sir, you are worse than delusional, you are scary..what's worse, there are many around with a similar philosophy.
A literal interpretation of an old imperfectly written vague document...insanity itself !
 
Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, that would be ridiculous. If the Constitution had been meant to be read literally, it would be MUCH more detailed. It is a framework, that is all.
 
Redress said:
Now you are rewriting history. When you have to do that to defend your point, it has failed miserably. 55 people where involved in forming our constitution, 3 people(most likely) wrote the Federalist papers, and the primary author, among other things, opposed the bill of rights. So no, the federalist papers are not the end all of constitutional discussion. Learn our history before lecturing on the topic.
Click to expand...

I don't think he is Red...

The U.S. Constitution is the work of several men, directly and indirectly. The three most notable persons whose work influenced the Constitution but who were not involved in its writing are Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine. The group of men involved in the writing of the Constitution are generally referred to as the "framers".

No single individual wrote it. Twelve of the thirteen states sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention to revise the Articles of Confederation and the entire convention worked on it. After the political questions were hashed out a 'committee of style' was formed to put the ideas into formal words. It is generally accepted that Gouverneur Morris created most of the actual wording included in the final draft from the Committee of Style.

The original copy of the document is preserved in the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C.

The person most associated with authoring the US Constitution was James Madison, the fourth President of the United States. Primary Author: James Madison (drafted the Virginia Plan). He is known as "The Father of the Constitution." James Madison wrote the Constitution in 1787. The constitution wasn't passed until 1788.


Read more: Who wrote the US Constitution

As for Hamilton...

Hamilton's Plan

On June 18 Alexander Hamilton presented his own ideal plan of government. Erudite and polished, the speech, nevertheless, failed to win a following. It went too far. Calling the British government "the best in the world," Hamilton proposed a model strikingly similar an executive to serve during good behavior or life with veto power over all laws; a senate with members serving during good behavior; the legislature to have power to pass "all laws whatsoever." Hamilton later wrote to Washington that the people were now willing to accept "something not very remote from that which they have lately quitted." What the people had "lately quitted," of course, was monarchy. Some members of the convention fully expected the country to turn in this direction. Hugh Williamson of North Carolina, a wealthy physician, declared that it was "pretty certain . . . that we should at some time or other have a king." Newspaper accounts appeared in the summer of 1787 alleging that a plot was under way to invite the second son of George III, Frederick, Duke of York, the secular bishop of Osnaburgh in Prussia, to become "king of the United States." - Constitution of the United States - A History
 
BD, your article proves me right. Many people wrote the constitution, 3 wrote the federalist papers, and the main writer of the federalist papers disagreed with the bill of rights.
 
digsbe said:
It is a binding legal document and as such does not change with time. What was written and ratified is absolute and just like any law, should not have it's legal status altered due to personal opinions/interpretations. Theft will be theft unless the legal process chooses to redefine it. If someone believes that stealing from a rich man is not "theft" they are still bound by the law and will be punished accordingly. The Constitution is our highest Law and should be treated as a legal document. I believe there are things that need to be interpreted from the Constitution, but the meaning itself should not change without going through the proper amendment process.
Click to expand...

Of course it does, and we have history to show this. The fonding fathers could have never really considered larry Flint, or Same sex marriage, or abortion. Yet, those things came up, and we had to use the words written to discover intent and how the law was to be applied. There is also very little likelihood that we see the 2nd amendment today as they did then, and people do in fact interpret it differently. Many are sure there vision is better, superior, and more in line with the original intent, to the point of being quite indignebt about it. But that's the point. People read the same thing and can't see how others see it differently. the fact is, they do.

Laws are written and yet cannot plan for every contingency, and how that law might apply to somehtng they did not consider. How the people who decide see it makes all the difference. It is a mistake to think anything can be written so clearly that everyone will always get the same meaning.
 
Everything written must be interpreted. Even something as simple as the Commandment "Thou shalt not Kill." How many different ways do we justify that action? We kill animals for food. We kill enemy combatants in War or conflicts. We kill inmates sentenced to death. We kill another person in an act of self defense. We kill pets that are too sick and old. The Commandment doesn't specify humans or mitigating circumstances.

The government is regulated by a system defined by the U.S. Constitution, which serves as the country's supreme legal document. It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law". Therefore it is the Law that must continually be amended and interpreted in every set of new circumstances using the Constitution as the bases for legal argument, since it is comprised of our founding principles.
 
Krhazy said:
No, that would be ridiculous. If the Constitution had been meant to be read literally, it would be MUCH more detailed. It is a framework, that is all.
Click to expand...

Hmm...good point.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Not a literalist, but I am an originalist. A literalist will usually not agree with minor tests on basic rights whereas an originalist usually subscribes to the necessary and proper clause. I do not usually entertain "because we can" or "because we need it" arguments without proper also being part of the equation.

For instance:
...........
Gun Control:
The founders were very clear that the right to keep and bear is not to be infringed. This is not therefore an issue that should not be confusing unless confusion is the intent. That being said.
Auto-Weapon bans - these are absurd, I have no problem with a simple licensing and testing compromise. The current law regarding these weapons is not necessary or proper, convoluted, and thus needs to be simplified.
General gun bans- Are not necessary or proper and should be struck down.
Conceal Carry Law- In general I have no problem with this, however some states make the permit process nearly impossible and should simplify.

.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Krhazy said:
No, that would be ridiculous. If the Constitution had been meant to be read literally, it would be MUCH more detailed. It is a framework, that is all.
Click to expand...

Yes. It can't possibly be otherwise. The act of reading words is to interpret them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom