Harry Guerrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 28,951
- Reaction score
- 12,422
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I didn't say that YOU supported slavery, I said that THEY did, and therefore you DON'T derive your political views from theirs. I think my meaning was pretty obvious. After all, it was written in English and we both speak English. Surely you should have no problem interpreting MY words correctly (especially after it's already been explained to you), given your expertise in interpreting the Constitution correctly where just about every Supreme Court Justice in the last 200 years has failed.
Yes but you are drawing a parallel.
I said "I derived", not "I believe the exact same thing."
You know exactly what I meant.
A) Why? Just because they created one process doesn't mean it has to be used for everything.
B) Even if that is what they intended, this is still based on the premise that everyone shares your view that what the Founding Fathers would have wanted is the most important thing.
C) Again, they were not a monolithic entity. It is hardly inconceivable that some might have only wanted to use the amendment process whereas others might be open to looser interpretations.
D) From a practical standpoint, the amendment process is simply too cumbersome. Even if it's what they intended, they either grossly miscalculated how difficult it would be, or they simply weren't planning for a continental nation made up of 50 states.
A) That is the legal methodology. The rule of law is meant to keep emotions at bay, so level heads will prevail.
B) It isn't really what they wanted as the most important thing, it's the concept of the rule of law and not the rule of man.
Sure laws are made by men but if they are reasonable and universally agreed upon.
We have a good starting point.
C) That's unfortunate for them, they should of tried to included that as a statute in the document.
D) Again, that's unfortunate but that is the law.
I'm sure if it were really important you could get enough people to change it.
It was made difficult on purpose, to act as a guard against ambitious men attempting to gain more unjust power.
I personally like it that way.
It's my guard against the wants and whims of "the people."
The Constitution has been interpreted ever since the ink was still wet.
It has, which is a slow tragedy in my mind.
That's not how law is supposed to work.
Because (and I know this is inconceivable to you) some of us simply don't share your view that the government can't do anything right and that society functions best when government doesn't do anything. But again, this is a separate topic for another thread.
The problem is though.
While you disagree, people like you are trying to force me to live within your society of positive rights.
I'm not asking for that, I'm asking to keep the original society of negative rights.
Where in the Constitution does it say to consult the Federalist Papers for the correct interpretation? Are you sure you aren't perhaps interpreting something that isn't there? The Founding Fathers could have easily mentioned that in the Constitution if that's how they actually wanted it to be interpreted.
It doesn't but the people who wrote The Constitution, explained their reasoning in the federalist papers.
They were used to give people a clearer understanding of what the Constitution meant from the mouths of the framers.
It definitely has it's place.
But of course, your own interpretations have none of that bias. They're the correct view.
I never said that, in fact I said that I do have a bias.
My bias is similar to those who wrote the original document.
I believe in negative rights, the principals of the enlightenment and liberalism.
OK, take a crack at this passage. Tell me how I should interpret this from a constitutional fundamentalist perspective:
Article II repeatedly refers to the president as "he." Presumably the Founding Fathers (at least some of them) meant the "he" literally, since they did not even guarantee women the right to vote. No subsequent amendments have made it clear that women are allowed to serve as president. So in your expert opinion, is a woman constitutionally eligible to serve as president? And if so, the enumerated powers of the president also refers to "he." So even if a woman is able to serve as president, is she able to exercise these powers?
(And no, I'm not calling YOU a misogynist so don't even go there. :roll
Technically no, they can't serve as president.
The ERA was never passed, so yes they can keep females from becoming president.
Why? Just because YOU might not have done it that way doesn't mean that THEY wouldn't have. (And again, this is premised on the assumption that I care how they "meant" for it to be interpreted, which you seem to take as a given.)
Because it has a fixed meaning, it is the law.
Laws are fixed until changed.
The amendment process is in The Constitution for making changes.
I'm not sure what the point of this exercise is. Any constitutional change I suggest, you'll either respond with "That's not a legitimate function of government" or "That's already clearly enumerated in Article Z, Section Y, just as the Founders obviously would have wanted, because I say it is." So do we really need to go through the motions of this exercise?
The founders created the amendment process so we could change it as needed.
Now I probably won't agree with your amendments but I don't need to pull up the founders for that, it's unnecessary.
I'd debate you based on their utility.
Honestly I'd rather debate amendments, than go through the discussion we're having now.
I think this whole debate revolves around, The rule of law vs. The rule of man.
Last edited: