Toothpicvic

Actually it wouldn't suck so bad if people didn't treat it and the founders like Monarchs. I doubt that's how the founders really wanted themselves and the Constitution to be considered.

niftydrifty

This thread sucks. Actually it wouldn't suck so bad if you could explain how (as well as which) people were treating a document like a monarch! And how are the founders treated like Monarchs? Any by whom and when? Examples, please.

__________________

mikeey

Tooth and why not, they where the best no dout about that,the American
poeple love there Constitution and so say all of US from Scotland who gave u it.

I love it more and more your Constitution it is the finest

you will ever get.

Bless United States OF America.

mikeey.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Toothpicvic

By people who shout "it's unconstitutional" every time they hear of a legislation that they hate (to the point that the term no longer has any meaning) and treat the founders like the Pope (the founders didn't want to be considered "perfect", that was the type of Monarchist image they they were trying to escape from when they left the British monarchy).

__________________

Tsunami

I think it is very true that politicians follow the letter of the Constitution more than the intent. And I think the Constitution itself left a lot of room for leeway. I guess this is exactly the opposite of what Toothpicvic just said. But I feel that it is easier to cancel obsolete parts than it is to get people to recognize the intent of parts that were vaguely worded.

__________________
Schadenfreude ist die schönste Freude.

Ethereal

So, anytime someone says something is unconstitutional they are treating the document like a monarch and the Founders like a Pope?



Oooookaaaay....

Reverend_Hellh0und

Why this thread sucks



There fixed it for you.

__________________
كافر
Caith siar é agus ná lig anair á

Goobieman

You mean in the same manner that certain people have reduced "nazi" to a meaningless level, through it over-use?

I think you'll find that most people that refer to something as unconstitutional have some rational basis for doing so. Given that, their opposition isnt based in hatred.

__________________
Artificially supporting the weak, slow, sick and stupid strains already limited resources and weakens the species as a whole.
-Goobieman

DrunkenAsparagus

The rule of law was soooooo last century

__________________
"Doubleplusungood"

George Orwell

flaja

Truth be known the Constitution is a living document. Even if (as libertarians- but not legitimate conservatives claim) the Founders did not intend to create a living document they treated the Constitution as such and every generation since them has treated the Constitution as such for the simple fact that the Constitution has been interpreted over its entire history.

The Federalist Number 78, “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.”

The Founding Fathers had no intention of imposing their will or their original intent on future generations.

http://abetterconstitution.com/

"No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation…Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.” —Thomas Jefferson (in a letter to James Madison from Paris, September 6, 1789)

“It would give me singular pleasure to see [this principle] first announced in the proceedings of the U. States, and always kept in their view, as a salutary curb on the living generation from imposing unjust or unnecessary burdens on their successors.”—James Madison (responding to Jefferson’s letter from New York, February 4, 1790)

“The warmest friends and best supporters the Constitution has, do not contend that it is free from imperfections; but they found them unavoidable and are sensible, if evil is likely to arise there from, the remedy must come hereafter; for in the present moment, it is not to be obtained; and as there is a Constitutional door open for it, I think the People (for it is with them to Judge) can as they will have the advantage of experience on their Side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments which are necessary [as] ourselves. I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us.”—George Washington (in a letter to Bushrod Washington, November 10, 1797)

“That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety…; and, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.”—George Mason (in Article One of Virginia’s original Constitution, 1776)

Note: George Mason was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, but he did not sign the document, and he opposed its ratification. Also, Thomas Jefferson did not attend the Convention.

Apart from the Holy Bible, the U.S. Constitution is the greatest force for conservatism that mankind has ever known. The Constitution’s ability to be interpreted means it can be adapted to most circumstances and happenstance that have developed in its 220 year history without having to be formally amended. This gives the Constitution stability that something bound by original intent could never have had.