• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

  • Total voters
    40
Morality Games said:
You seem to exist in a profound state of spiritual desolation.
Click to expand...

No. I just view the world from a very different place than most people do. I long ago realized that all the pretty, happy, joyful stuff in the spiritual world is crap and nothing more. It's the bright bunting placed on the coffin to make people forget there's a dead body inside it. The world is a cruel, nasty, vile place where only the Strong survive. Always has been. We just put up this bunting called "civilization" to try and hide that from our eyes on a daily basis.
 
Tigger said:
Yes I do have some magic wands to wave. Quite a few, as do many of the other who agree with me. They come in a number of different flavors.....

9mm, .45ACP, .40S&W, 5.56mm NATO, 7.62mm NATO, etc....
Click to expand...

Yeah, and let me know when you, armed with whatever you want, makes the citizens of this country vote any differently. :roll:
 
Tigger said:
No. I just view the world from a very different place than most people do. I long ago realized that all the pretty, happy, joyful stuff in the spiritual world is crap and nothing more. It's the bright bunting placed on the coffin to make people forget there's a dead body inside it. The world is a cruel, nasty, vile place where only the Strong survive. Always has been. We just put up this bunting called "civilization" to try and hide that from our eyes on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

That disposition is usually termed 'spiritual desolation'.

Considering history (God, destiny, chance, take your pick) gave it us to enjoy a much better life than the overwhelming majority of the human race that came before us, the least we can do is honor the gift by returning a bit of the humanism that spurred and maintained it, from before the Revolution.

Unless you are under the continual threat of being dipped in tar, crucified, and set on fire, in addition to starving, having worms, and continual exposure to the elements, I don't think you have much to complain about. Life in a modern democracy is a little too generous for chomping at the bit for war and revolution to seem like anything besides narcissism on steroids.
 
Last edited:
whysoserious said:
No. First of all, I am not sure it is even possible to be a literal Constitutionalist - as anything written requires interpretation, and almost any text can be interpreted differently. Secondly, when interpreting writing, intent has to be taken into consideration, and anyone who is a strict Constitutionalist fails on that front.
Click to expand...
BS....you pulled that one out of your arse. Strict Constitutionalists constantly look to the Federalists
Papers and other documents to make certain they clearly understand the intent of the Founding Fathers. Liberals ignore those documents and claim the Constitution is living document that must be interpreted based on what feels good today and not what the FF wanted. You could not be more wrong with your failed attempt to bash conservative judges.
 
Tigger said:
Ok, so which am I, Aderleth? I am a strong proponent of not only a literal reading of the document, but a removal of most of the amendments after the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Delusional, obviously. I'm pretty sure I've made it clear before that I think you're completely out of your entire goddamn mind. This is yet another example of that.
 
conservativeguy said:
BS....you pulled that one out of your arse. Strict Constitutionalists constantly look to the Federalists
Papers and other documents to make certain they clearly understand the intent of the Founding Fathers. Liberals ignore those documents and claim the Constitution is living document that must be interpreted based on what feels good today and not what the FF wanted. You could not be more wrong with your failed attempt to bash conservative judges.
Click to expand...

Every constitutional lawyer/judge makes use of the Federalist Papers, the same way everybody quotes other academics in academic journals. It's an industry standard not related to ideology. In theory, strict Constitutionalists only differ from other judges in that they tend to address new realities and challenges to the law as minimally as possible. A judge with other sensibilities wouldn't see such "judicial minimalism" as much as a priority as providing a society that fits his/her notion of what different legal, political, cultural, and 'philosophical' factors are "supposed to make" the United States.
 
Last edited:
Tigger said:
Yes I do have some magic wands to wave. Quite a few, as do many of the other who agree with me. They come in a number of different flavors.....

9mm, .45ACP, .40S&W, 5.56mm NATO, 7.62mm NATO, etc....
Click to expand...
People like you should not be allowed to have weapons.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
I think that we should interpret the Constitution to be pretty close to the original or literal meaning. There is some leeway, and if we interpreted everything literally, there are still somethings that have multiple meanings. I think that laws should be consistent with what the amendment is trying to do. There is still some subjectivity. That will never be eliminated from jurisprudence, or else judges wouldn't be necessary. However, I feel that a lot of people use the constitution to support rights that don't appear anywhere in the document, use meanings that almost no one applies, or blatantly contradict what the text says. Interpretation is important. For instance, Moby Dick is not just about some guy who is pissed off at a whale, but it's also not about something like women's rights or how to drive a car. This is not to say that the law is as open to interpretation as a fictional work. The law has some room for interpretation like literature, but the entire concept of the rule of law is based upon clear rules. The law has some leeway, but if the Founders wanted the government to be able to pass any statute it wanted, they could have simply copied the UK. The constitution there simply consists of whatever statutes are on the book. The Founders chose not to.
Click to expand...

Words are almost as difficult to interpret as a fictional work. Our experiences are different today than they were a two hundred years ago, and it is next to impossible to see things through two hundred year old eyes. We don't have a citizen army for example, so the meaning behind the 2nd amendment means something different to people today than it did then. And two hundred years from now, no one around will know whay we saw things the way we did.

Yes, we should seek meaning, seek trying to figure out what a law intended and how it fits with the reality we live into today. But the nature of labnguage and people means there will be disagreement, as there is with any interpretation of any kind.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Simple question. Are you a Literal Constitutionalist? IE Someone that believes in interpreting the US Constitution in a literal word for word way and leaving out the Spirit of the Law.

Poll is open.
Click to expand...
It is a written form of communication, so the first step is to understand the literal meaning. Once the literal meaning is understood, it is possible to properly apply the spirit of the law.
 
Cephus said:
Yeah, and let me know when you, armed with whatever you want, makes the citizens of this country vote any differently. :roll:
Click to expand...

Who's talking about voting as a way to change things?


Morality Games said:
That disposition is usually termed 'spiritual desolation'.

Considering history (God, destiny, chance, take your pick) gave it us to enjoy a much better life than the overwhelming majority of the human race that came before us, the least we can do is honor the gift by returning a bit of the humanism that spurred and maintained it, from before the Revolution.

Unless you are under the continual threat of being dipped in tar, crucified, and set on fire, in addition to starving, having worms, and continual exposure to the elements, I don't think you have much to complain about. Life in a modern democracy is a little too generous for chomping at the bit for war and revolution to seem like anything besides narcissism on steroids.
Click to expand...

You have to realize that my preference would be to go back to that tarring and feathering, drawing and quartering, pillarying day and age.


Aderleth said:
Delusional, obviously. I'm pretty sure I've made it clear before that I think you're completely out of your entire goddamn mind. This is yet another example of that.
Click to expand...

Then obviously we have nothing more to discuss on this or any other topic. Welcome to the Ignore List. We've gotta be getting close to 40 members there now.


theplaydrive said:
People like you should not be allowed to have weapons.
Click to expand...

I would suggest it's actually the other way around. Anyone who self-identifies as a Liberal or who has ever voted for a Democrat should be disallowed from owning firearms.
 
You have to realize that my preference would be to go back to that tarring and feathering, drawing and quartering, pillarying day and age.
Click to expand...

To your notion of what it was 'really' like and about, maybe. The reality has nothing attractive about it, so any assertion one would like to 'go back to it' is lacking in credibility.
 
Last edited:
Tigger said:
I would suggest it's actually the other way around. Anyone who self-identifies as a Liberal or who has ever voted for a Democrat should be disallowed from owning firearms.
Click to expand...
The ability of someone to own guns has nothing to do with political persuasion. It has to do with sanity and good judgment. You appear to have neither.
 
Tigger said:
Then obviously we have nothing more to discuss on this or any other topic. Welcome to the Ignore List. We've gotta be getting close to 40 members there now.
Click to expand...

No worries. I say this with no rancor, but I haven't had any illusions about having a serious conversation with you for quite a long time. I'm still not entirely convinced that you haven't just invented the personality you use on this site.
 
Morality Games said:
To your notion of what it was 'really' like and about, maybe. The reality has nothing attractive about it, so any assertion one would like to 'go back to it' is lacking in credibility.
Click to expand...

As a student of history I am more than well aware of what the reality of that time period was. I'd have been dead at age 4 if not killed at birth by the midwife. I understand that it would not be a pleasant situation, but I believe it would be better than what we have now.
 
Morality Games said:
Every constitutional lawyer/judge makes use of the Federalist Papers, the same way everybody quotes other academics in academic journals. It's an industry standard not related to ideology. In theory, strict Constitutionalists only differ from other judges in that they tend to address new realities and challenges to the law as minimally as possible. A judge with other sensibilities wouldn't see such "judicial minimalism" as much as a priority as providing a society that fits his/her notion of what different legal, political, cultural, and 'philosophical' factors are "supposed to make" the United States.
Click to expand...

Which Federalist Paper was cited in Roe V. Wade?
 
Tigger said:
As a student of history I am more than well aware of what the reality of that time period was. I'd have been dead at age 4 if not killed at birth by the midwife. I understand that it would not be a pleasant situation, but I believe it would be better than what we have now.
Click to expand...

Awareness of facts of history isn't awareness of the essence of history or the nature and limits of the human will. The notion we would be 'better off' is inherently, given the context of our lives, not credible.

Saying you would rather be dead at 4 when you grew up with the convenience of supermarkets, malls, and when you now enjoy technology and entertainment on the level of the Internet, is meaningless.

The very nature of modern existence, for all of its good points and bad points, makes Social Darwinist opinions ridiculous to hold or maintain; as you as you belong to modern existence, and not some other phase of history, that will be the case.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
Awareness of facts of history isn't awareness of the essence of history or the nature and limits of the human will. The notion we would be 'better off' is inherently, given the context of our lives, not credible. It's a self-indulgent fancy.
Click to expand...

Then apparently we have no basis for conversation, do we?
 
LaMidRighter said:
The ninth and tenth amendments:
Should be restored fully in prominence to reign in the federal government encroachment on state's rights, this would solve thousands if not millions of problems on the local, state, and federal level.
Click to expand...

I would love it if the ninth were used as a check against the reductions in the rights to privacy, attempts to regulate sexuality, the enforcement of religious ideas on those who do not belong to that religion. The ninth amendment basically just says that we have rights beyond those enumerated in the bill of rights.

The tenth amendment, however, has never ever ever ever been used to prevent the federal government from exercising a power. It just says that the states get to do anything that doesn't contradict the federal government. It has been specifically held by the supreme court to work this way on several occasions.
 
I would say yes I am going against what some have been saying here. I think it is written pretty plainly but you need to know the meanings of the words that were used at the time of it's writing. This is easy enough using a dictionary from the 1800's. So those who say it can't be interpreted that way are those who most likely also think it is a living document that needs to be changed. I don't feel it needs to be changed, it needs to be followed, period.

We have spent more time reinterpreting it and trying to do end runs around it that I don't think most even have a clue as far as the spirit or actual law in concerned.
 
The original US Constitution was written and ratified to promote the best interests of one group, and one group only - prosperous white males. No other group was represented, or even allowed to vote until after the Civil War.

If the Constitution were the perfect document, there would have been no need for amendments.
 
Last edited:
whysoserious said:
No. First of all, I am not sure it is even possible to be a literal Constitutionalist - as anything written requires interpretation, and almost any text can be interpreted differently. Secondly, when interpreting writing, intent has to be taken into consideration, and anyone who is a strict Constitutionalist fails on that front.
Click to expand...

Intent is how you interpret the text. That's why it's called "Original Intent".
 
Blackdog said:
I would say yes I am going against what some have been saying here. I think it is written pretty plainly but you need to know the meanings of the words that were used at the time of it's writing. This is easy enough using a dictionary from the 1800's. So those who say it can't be interpreted that way are those who most likely also think it is a living document that needs to be changed. I don't feel it needs to be changed, it needs to be followed, period.

We have spent more time reinterpreting it and trying to do end runs around it that I don't think most even have a clue as far as the spirit or actual law in concerned.
Click to expand...

I think that is largely your interpretation. Am I susprised some interpret it differently? No. :coffeepap
 
cpwill said:
Intent is how you interpret the text. That's why it's called "Original Intent".
Click to expand...

YOu must know original intent, and how to deal with what happens when original intent no longer applies in the world we live in.
 
jgarden47 said:
The original US Constitution was written and ratified to promote the best interests of one group, and one group only - prosperous white males. No other group was represented, or even allowed to vote until after the Civil War.
Click to expand...

that is incorrect - blacks voted in several early states. but of course your public education never taught you that :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom