Does the GOP Conservative,really believe in the U.S.Constitution ?

Visbek · Mar 11, 2015

clownboy said:
Again, I agree and a lot of what you say is accurate. However, as to the bolded part, that's where the kludge of the living document BS comes in. The Constitution was set up to require generational maintenance. That's what the amendment process is all about.

First, the structure of the amendment process belies this claim. It is not an easy process, it is significantly harder to amend the Constitution in the US than in most other nations, it's become more difficult as we've added states, and we haven't done anything to make it any easier. In addition, some people today treat every vowel and comma of the Constitution as sacrosanct. This has made modifications even more difficult.

Second, it's very clear that the Constitution was not fixed in stone from the start. The first generations of politicians, especially Washington, knew that their choices would have a major impact on how the nation's political structure and balance of powers would play out. The Framers knew it shouldn't be as specific as statutory law. Jefferson even tossed off a comment about replacing it once a generation.

Third, whining doesn't answer the critical questions.
• WHOSE intent do we follow? The author, the legislators, the ratifiers, the citizens? The citizens whose lives will actually be influenced by the interpretations?

• What happens when the intent was actually divided? E.g. many early post-colonial politicians didn't want a standing army at all, while some did. Whose intent is binding?

• We have absolutely no idea how any of those politicians would react to modern times. E.g. imagining that we know how Jefferson would react to desegregation, let alone the Internet, beggars belief.

• What happens when our ethical concepts change? The Constitution outlaws "cruel and unusual punishment." Are we supposed to hew to the 18th century concepts about punishment? Washington whipped deserters from the Revolutionary Army, with minimal due process; does that mean flogging is back on the table as a valid punishment?

More to the point is that there is no one, single, absolutely accurate interpretation of the Constitution. It doesn't happen. It can't happen. The nature of language, law and politics makes it impossible. Every law and every court decision will rely on an act of interpretation. Even claiming you're following exactly what the Framers intended requires an act of interpreting their intentions.

Nor is that particularly new. In English Common Law, judges routinely needed to rely on precedent, and determine how to apply older laws to new situations. What has changed isn't the process, it is our awareness of the interpretive elements of that process.

We, as a nation, failed to do our due diligence in keeping step between the Constitution and changing times. Instead we allowed the SCOTUS to take the power to shortcut the process and make the changes themselves through re-interpretation.

There is little reason to doubt the validity of judicial review. The concept was utilized prior to the ratification of the US Constitution. It was solidified in the US in 1803 with Marbury v Madison -- years in which Jefferson, Madison, Adams, John Jay, even Thomas Paine were still alive and active. Even those who disliked it (such as Jefferson) took few, if any, steps to stop it. There was really no doubt after 1803 that the SCOTUS had taken on this role.

We've also had over 200 years to amend the Constitution and change this system. We didn't. You wanna change it? You know what to do.

And pertinent to the question posed in this thread: People tend to bitch about the judiciary a lot more after a loss than after a victory. I don't recall a lot of pro-gun advocates decrying judicial activism, or judicial review, in the wake of Heller....

DA60 · Mar 13, 2015

How the hell would I - or anyone - know what EVERY, single GOP loyalist believes in?

Ryan5 · Mar 13, 2015

These threads are absolutely amazing in their all around assumptions that all Americans even care about the constitution or ever did to begin with. It's an old document from a bygone time. Assumptions are dangerous things.

Consider it's a document that was created by slave owners who didn't want women to ever be able to vote nor people who didn't own land.

I actually very much like the US constitution but it does scare me just how assumptive your average constitution supporter is in regards to the average American.

Smeagol · Mar 13, 2015

oncewas said:
Do the GOP Conservative believe in the Constitution only when it suit their agenda,or for what the Constitution really means? Do the GOP think the founding Fathers got it wrong when they wrote the U.S.Constitution ?3

You can't put everyone in the same box but I've found that often partisan types tend to define what's right and wrong based on their party's agenda first and foremost. I'm sure there are exceptions but they probably claim to support the constitution and honestly believe they do but only after they've interpreted the constitution to line up with their party.

Oozlefinch · Mar 13, 2015

Smeagol said:
You can't put everyone in the same box but I've found that often partisan types tend to define what's right and wrong based on their party's agenda first and foremost. I'm sure there are exceptions but they probably claim to support the constitution and honestly believe they do but only after they've interpreted the constitution to line up with their party.

I am highlighting something really important in your post.

Most Republicans (as are Most Democrats) are not political partisans. They tend to be more moderate, tending to agree with their party of choice but not having a real strong attachment to it, and may even cross over if the right issue or candidate comes along (look at Reagan Democrats for a classic example).

The problem with the far sides both Left and Right is that they all to often tend to dominate the discussion. More moderate people are often willing to make concessions and find a neutral ground, while the partisans want an "all or nothing" approach, and anybody who does not agree should be burned at the stake.

Phys251 · Mar 15, 2015

Visbek said:
First, the structure of the amendment process belies this claim. It is not an easy process, it is significantly harder to amend the Constitution in the US than in most other nations, it's become more difficult as we've added states, and we haven't done anything to make it any easier. In addition, some people today treat every vowel and comma of the Constitution as sacrosanct. This has made modifications even more difficult.

Second, it's very clear that the Constitution was not fixed in stone from the start. The first generations of politicians, especially Washington, knew that their choices would have a major impact on how the nation's political structure and balance of powers would play out. The Framers knew it shouldn't be as specific as statutory law. Jefferson even tossed off a comment about replacing it once a generation.

Third, whining doesn't answer the critical questions.
• WHOSE intent do we follow? The author, the legislators, the ratifiers, the citizens? The citizens whose lives will actually be influenced by the interpretations?

• What happens when the intent was actually divided? E.g. many early post-colonial politicians didn't want a standing army at all, while some did. Whose intent is binding?

• We have absolutely no idea how any of those politicians would react to modern times. E.g. imagining that we know how Jefferson would react to desegregation, let alone the Internet, beggars belief.

• What happens when our ethical concepts change? The Constitution outlaws "cruel and unusual punishment." Are we supposed to hew to the 18th century concepts about punishment? Washington whipped deserters from the Revolutionary Army, with minimal due process; does that mean flogging is back on the table as a valid punishment?

More to the point is that there is no one, single, absolutely accurate interpretation of the Constitution. It doesn't happen. It can't happen. The nature of language, law and politics makes it impossible. Every law and every court decision will rely on an act of interpretation. Even claiming you're following exactly what the Framers intended requires an act of interpreting their intentions.

Nor is that particularly new. In English Common Law, judges routinely needed to rely on precedent, and determine how to apply older laws to new situations. What has changed isn't the process, it is our awareness of the interpretive elements of that process.

There is little reason to doubt the validity of judicial review. The concept was utilized prior to the ratification of the US Constitution. It was solidified in the US in 1803 with Marbury v Madison -- years in which Jefferson, Madison, Adams, John Jay, even Thomas Paine were still alive and active. Even those who disliked it (such as Jefferson) took few, if any, steps to stop it. There was really no doubt after 1803 that the SCOTUS had taken on this role.

We've also had over 200 years to amend the Constitution and change this system. We didn't. You wanna change it? You know what to do.

And pertinent to the question posed in this thread: People tend to bitch about the judiciary a lot more after a loss than after a victory. I don't recall a lot of pro-gun advocates decrying judicial activism, or judicial review, in the wake of Heller....

I need a LOT more than one "like" for this post.

I distrust people who say that they know the Founders' "original intent." Really? Were you alive in the 1780s? Did you speak in person with Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin? You didn't? Then how can you really know? Because Glenn Beck or whomever told you so? No. People need to pick up a copy of The Federalist Papers and read it for themselves. Don't let others dictate your opinions; use your own brainpower to draw your own conclusions. Think for yourself! It is a constitutional right!

Does the GOP Conservative,really believe in the U.S.Constitution ?

DO GOP BELIEVE IN THE U.S.CONSTITUTION ?

Yes

No

Sometimes

Don't care.

More options

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

DA60

Ryan5

Smeagol

Oozlefinch

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice