View Poll Results: Does the original intent still matter when discussing the Constitution?

Voters
78. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. We should strictly follow both the letter and spirit of the original intent.

    28 35.90%
  • Yes. We should follow the original principles and then apply them as new issues arise.

    21 26.92%
  • Yes. The original intent of the Constition is important, but other factors must be considered.

    15 19.23%
  • No. The Constitution is a guiding set of principles that we can interrpret to fit our current needs.

    10 12.82%
  • Other

    4 5.13%
Page 15 of 30 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 291

Thread: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

  1. #141
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,301

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Of course is does.

    But reading the 2nd amendment through a keyhole is asinine.

    The 1st amendment doesn't mention kiddie porn.

    The 2nd amendment doesn't mention fully-automatic weapons.

    So, Justice Psychoclown, explain how states can ban kiddie porn and not weapons they deem contrary to public safety.
    Name a fire arm that isn't contrary to public safety (the way you mean it).
    "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.

  2. #142
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Of course is does.

    But reading the 2nd amendment through a keyhole is asinine.

    The 1st amendment doesn't mention kiddie porn.

    The 2nd amendment doesn't mention fully-automatic weapons.

    So, Justice Psychoclown, explain how states can ban kiddie porn and not weapons they deem contrary to public safety.
    The First Amendment doesn't mention the internet. Better outlaw the internet.

  3. #143
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:25 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,548

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Of course is does.

    But reading the 2nd amendment through a keyhole is asinine.

    The 1st amendment doesn't mention kiddie porn.

    The 2nd amendment doesn't mention fully-automatic weapons.

    So, Justice Psychoclown, explain how states can ban kiddie porn and not weapons they deem contrary to public safety.
    It's not like it's terribly difficult to differentiate the two in plain-language terms.

    Kiddie porn isn't "speech." Video porn, at least, isn't "the press."

    But fully-auto weapons are "arms."
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #144
    Professor
    other's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    VA
    Last Seen
    01-22-14 @ 11:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,473

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post

    The 1st amendment doesn't mention kiddie porn.
    .
    that is a violation of the child's rights.

  5. #145
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:25 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,548

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by other View Post
    that is a violation of the child's rights.
    And, that's an entirely different issue. States can ban the creation of kiddie porn for perfectly valid reasons having nothing whatever to do with the 1st Amendment.

    Note that drawings, for example, which involved no actual children do not fall under kiddie porn bans (though I'm sure some zealous prosecutor somewhere has tried).
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  6. #146
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    11-25-17 @ 12:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,738

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Of course is does.

    But reading the 2nd amendment through a keyhole is asinine.

    The 1st amendment doesn't mention kiddie porn.

    The 2nd amendment doesn't mention fully-automatic weapons.

    So, Justice Psychoclown, explain how states can ban kiddie porn and not weapons they deem contrary to public safety.
    Very simple. In order to create kiddie porn, you must violate the rights of a child. My owning a gun does not violate anyone's rights.
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

  7. #147
    Professor
    other's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    VA
    Last Seen
    01-22-14 @ 11:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,473

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    And, that's an entirely different issue. States can ban the creation of kiddie porn for perfectly valid reasons having nothing whatever to do with the 1st Amendment.
    I know, they can ban it because it violates the child's rights... therefore k porn isn't a protected right (1st or any other). (nor is it "speech" or "press" as you pointed out)

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Note that drawings, for example, which involved no actual children do not fall under kiddie porn bans (though I'm sure some zealous prosecutor somewhere has tried).
    yes, because drawings have no rights.
    Last edited by other; 10-14-09 at 08:30 PM.

  8. #148
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,301

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    The First Amendment doesn't mention the internet. Better outlaw the internet.
    It doesn't mention hazlnut either, so he should shutup.
    "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.

  9. #149
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:25 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,548

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by other View Post
    I know, they can ban it because it violates the child's rights... therefore k porn isn't a protected right (1st or any other). (nor is it "speech" or "press" as you pointed out)



    yes, because drawings have no rights.
    Correct, and banning drawn kiddie porn would be 1st Amendment issue. But as I said, to my knowledge, it isn't illegal anywhere, nor would such a ban likely survive a 1st Amendment challenge.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  10. #150
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post

    Note that drawings, for example, which involved no actual children do not fall under kiddie porn bans (though I'm sure some zealous prosecutor somewhere has tried).
    Look up the case of Jock Sturges. The FBI took all his equipment negatives and his life for making images of nudist families when he came back from France on the airplane.

Page 15 of 30 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... 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
  •