However, there ARE parts of the Constitution that are completely unambiguous, but that doesn't stop people from distorting the plain meaning of words.
I agree. Not sure what that has to do with me, though....it's funny how often conservatives hide behind that argument when it's against something they don't like, and forget all about it when THEY want to make an unconstitutional law. Seems awfully hypocritical don't you think?
So long as you accept the fact that your interpretation will be inherently inferior to the one informed by the actual writers of the legal document in question.You're welcome to your opinion of course. If you want to take the founder's opinions into account when interpreting the constitution, go right ahead, just don't expect everyone to do it. Personally I think their opinions are irrelevant, since they're dead. If they wanted an unambiguous document, they had their chance to write it. They didn't, so it's up to us to interpret it, not them.
I also find it sad that you consider the opinion of such brilliant and principled individuals "irrelevant". Typical liberal hubris.
How ironic. You're using the alleged intentions of the Founders to justify your position. I thought they were irrelevant?Honestly, I greatly respect them for that. I think leaving certain things ambiguous so that they could be interpreted as needed by future generations was a brilliant move on their parts.
If you don't like being called an ingrate then cease acting like one.Yawn. Yet another poster, who, when they have no valid counter-arguments results to insults.
You're saying the Founders' opinions are irrelevant. The obvious implication of this is to throw said time period into the trash. That's the logical conclusion of your position; sorry if you don't like having your own position thrown back in your face.Again, that's not what I said at all. Stop putting words in my mouth. You're welcome to take the founder's opinions (if you think you know what they were) into account when making your decisions about things, just don't expect the same of everyone.
I never said I wanted to give their opinions MORE weight. I just think that they should be given SOME weight, as opposed to none at all, which is what you're suggesting.What's creepy is wanting to give more weight to the opinions of dead people than live ones.
It helps if you actually remember what was said and by whom.
There's this thing - dunno if you've heard of it - called "the Amendment process". It's a mechanism for change and adaption that was put in the Constitution so as to allow future generations latitude in the governance of their nation. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with it.What's creepy is wanting our government to stagnate rather than grow and change with the times.
Last edited by winston53660; 05-15-10 at 11:44 AM.
Edited because I decided I'd rather wait until I can reply to everything at once.
My wife is on my ass to do the dishes. Cheers.
If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.
If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
They are a good basic set of rules without need of revision.
Anyone who thinks man has changed so much over that time, is mostly impatient about how they want man to change.
The truth is we are more or less the same as we were 1000 years ago, technology has changed, some ideas have changed but nothing enough to warrant a complete revision of the basic set of rules they created.
I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.