• 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

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
 
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.
 
Nope, in fact I think there's a lot of the Constitution that needs to be seriously updated.
 
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.

Not sure that is even possible. Language is not so exact as that anyone can really interpret without some confusion. And I would hope they always seek to meet the spirit of the law, assuming everyone agrees what that was. that said, they do still have to contend with what was written. This is often where disagreements reside.
 
Anyone who answers yes in this poll does not understand basic constitutional jurisprudence. According to the basic wording of the constitution, the right to freely assemble, or practice one's religion doesn't actually exist. Oh, and any entity smaller than a state can infringe on them however they want. Oh, and judicial review wouldn't exist either, essentially removing any check on a congressional act besides the presidential veto. Oh, and technically the army is supposed to be completely disbanded every two years. We kinda ignore that limitation on congress' ability to fund an army.

Most people who call themselves "literalists" actually just want a narrow reading of the commerce clause.
 
Nope, in fact I think there's a lot of the Constitution that needs to be seriously updated.

There are things that could use some updating, but I think that is a different issue. We have ana amendment procedure. Nothing wong with working through the process to up date a few things. 2nd amendment comes to mind. Make it clearer one way or the other.
 
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.

Anyone who claims to be a literal constitutionalist is either lying or delusional.
 
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.
 
The Constitution is a horribly vague document in need of a serious rewrite. It's impossible to interpret it literally without injecting your own views, in part because claiming to interpret it literally IS injecting your own views.
 
There are things that could use some updating, but I think that is a different issue. We have ana amendment procedure. Nothing wong with working through the process to up date a few things. 2nd amendment comes to mind. Make it clearer one way or the other.

The problem is, most people are ignorant and we all know that actually amending the Constitution is virtually impossible. There are a lot of things that, while they may have been applicable 240 years ago, simply make little sense today and don't apply to the modern world. As time goes on, the Constitution will continue to become less and less relevant.
 
YES, I am a Constitutional Literalist. I always have been and always will be.
 
Anyone who claims to be a literal constitutionalist is either lying or delusional.

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.
 
The problem is, most people are ignorant and we all know that actually amending the Constitution is virtually impossible. There are a lot of things that, while they may have been applicable 240 years ago, simply make little sense today and don't apply to the modern world. As time goes on, the Constitution will continue to become less and less relevant.

If it becomes irrelevant enough then it will either be amended, rewritten, or we'll have a revolution and form a new government.... You know, like the Founders intended.
 
If it becomes irrelevant enough then it will either be amended, rewritten, or we'll have a revolution and form a new government.... You know, like the Founders intended.

Or, like in so many cases today, it's just ignored. Most people are sheep and just don't care.
 
I think that we should interpret the Constitution to be pretty close to the original or literal meaning. There is some leeway, and if we interpreted everything literally, there are still somethings that have multiple meanings. I think that laws should be consistent with what the amendment is trying to do. There is still some subjectivity. That will never be eliminated from jurisprudence, or else judges wouldn't be necessary. However, I feel that a lot of people use the constitution to support rights that don't appear anywhere in the document, use meanings that almost no one applies, or blatantly contradict what the text says. Interpretation is important. For instance, Moby Dick is not just about some guy who is pissed off at a whale, but it's also not about something like women's rights or how to drive a car. This is not to say that the law is as open to interpretation as a fictional work. The law has some room for interpretation like literature, but the entire concept of the rule of law is based upon clear rules. The law has some leeway, but if the Founders wanted the government to be able to pass any statute it wanted, they could have simply copied the UK. The constitution there simply consists of whatever statutes are on the book. The Founders chose not to.
 
Or, like in so many cases today, it's just ignored. Most people are sheep and just don't care.

Then maybe those of us who do care just need to be a little more "forceful" in our push to get things back on track. The Tea Partiers CLAIMED they were going to start changing the system, but I've heard little out of them about that in the last six months.
 
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:
Certain bans on speech that aren't found in literalism but do fall under necessary and proper;
Libel/Defamation law- we cannot damage the reputation of our fellow citizens, truth is a defense, but it is nearly impossible to regain your standing in society after a nasty character attack. Lying about others character is thus protected literally but not under a necessary and proper interpretation.
Incitement to riot, fighting words, other words intended to create violence- Really not much needs to be said here, we do not have the right to infringe upon other's rights so obviously we cannot as a society to allow excessively violent speech to risk harm to others.
Porn/Obscenity law- Under VERY specific circumstances. For instance cursing in public is not the best usage of speech but I firmly believe it should be protected, some locations and courts disagree. Public broadcasters I believe shouldn't be allowed obscene content uncensored only because of the access to children, however paid programming should be exempt.

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.

The ninth and tenth amendments:
Should be restored fully in prominence to reign in the federal government encroachment on state's rights, this would solve thousands if not millions of problems on the local, state, and federal level.

So no, very few people including myself are literalists for various reasons.
 
Last edited:
Then maybe those of us who do care just need to be a little more "forceful" in our push to get things back on track. The Tea Partiers CLAIMED they were going to start changing the system, but I've heard little out of them about that in the last six months.

The problem is, there aren't enough of us who care to make a difference. The Tea Party is a minuscule minority. We need a majority of Americans to care and that's just not going to happen.
 
Last edited:
The problem is, there aren't enough of us who care to make a difference. The Tea Party is a minuscule minority. We need a majority of Americans to care and that's just not going to happen.

We may be a minority, but we are a group that should be willing to do anything and everything to make sure this issue gets corrected.
 
The Constitution is very vague in many areas. I almost hate to say this, because I generally favor more precise wording, but in the case of the Constitution, the vagueness is what has worked for it and why it has lasted as long as it has.

There are areas that I wish were clarified and narrowed a bit, but overall I think some level of vagueness works well.

ETA: The biggest problem is not the Constitution itself, but the courts. There have been many instances where the Constitution was pretty clear, and the courts chose to ignore it anyway.
 
Last edited:
We may be a minority, but we are a group that should be willing to do anything and everything to make sure this issue gets corrected.

That's great, got any magic wands to wave? Unless we get a majority of people voting to fix the issue, it won't get fixed.
 
That's great, got any magic wands to wave? Unless we get a majority of people voting to fix the issue, it won't get fixed.

Yes I do have some magic wands to wave. Quite a few, as do many of the other who agree with me. They come in a number of different flavors.....

9mm, .45ACP, .40S&W, 5.56mm NATO, 7.62mm NATO, etc....
 
Yes I do have some magic wands to wave. Quite a few, as do many of the other who agree with me. They come in a number of different flavors.....

9mm, .45ACP, .40S&W, 5.56mm NATO, 7.62mm NATO, etc....

You seem to exist in a profound state of spiritual desolation.
 
Back
Top Bottom