• 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
Boo Radley said:
YOu must know original intent
Click to expand...

which, within a fairly narrow range, isn't terribly difficult. heck, for the main body of the text I can purchase the original intent for $3 on my kindle.

and how to deal with what happens when original intent no longer applies in the world we live in.
Click to expand...

no longer applies how?
 
Paschendale said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree here. No one belief or lifestyle fits all people, not even a consensus of opinion in any region of what is believed works if someone is different. Knowing that part of human nature it is natural to allow individuals as much liberty as possible with the only restrictions being the exclusions of behaviors that have a provable harm on others or otherwise infringes upon their 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.
Click to expand...
The tenth reserves very specific powers to the federal government and remands those not listed to the states. The tenth has been much abused since the late nineteenth century, the problem being that many politicians have expanded the definition of interstate commerce to include all transactions, the original intent was to settle interstate trade disputes and to serve as a boundry to establish where power stands. Unfortunately post civil war the mentality has become such that the federal is considered the arbiter of power differences and they tend to enhance their own interests.
 
cpwill said:
which, within a fairly narrow range, isn't terribly difficult. heck, for the main body of the text I can purchase the original intent for $3 on my kindle.



no longer applies how?
Click to expand...

More difficult than you think, which is really why more peopel disagree that you credit. You side tends to assume that amy reading not within your view of it isn't seeking orignal intent. Often you are wrong on that.

I was thinking about the second amendment, which was more about wanting to keep a citizen army than anything else. While I have no desire to outlaw guns, that rationale no longer applies. it's one reason why I think the amendment shoud be rewritten to be more specifc for the world we live in today.
 
Boo Radley said:
I was thinking about the second amendment, which was more about wanting to keep a citizen army than anything else. While I have no desire to outlaw guns, that rationale no longer applies. it's one reason why I think the amendment shoud be rewritten to be more specifc for the world we live in today.
Click to expand...

No, it very much still applies. The problem is people are just scared. There is a difference.
 
Boo Radley said:
More difficult than you think, which is really why more peopel disagree that you credit. You side tends to assume that amy reading not within your view of it isn't seeking orignal intent. Often you are wrong on that.
Click to expand...

which is a non answer.

I was thinking about the second amendment, which was more about wanting to keep a citizen army than anything else. While I have no desire to outlaw guns, that rationale no longer applies. it's one reason why I think the amendment shoud be rewritten to be more specifc for the world we live in today.
Click to expand...

given that they considered the militia to be "the whole people", i'm not sure you could argue that they were first looking to maintain a citizen army as an end in its' own right.

however, even if they did, why does that rationale no longer apply?

and it seems that if you feel that it does, the answer is obvious - get public support and amend the Constitution. then it will be your intent that we should hew to.
 
the problem being that many politicians have expanded the definition of interstate commerce to include all transactions, the original intent was to settle interstate trade disputes and to serve as a boundry to establish where power stands.
Click to expand...

Thank you! I have been saying this for years and people are just ignorant of the fact. Thank you again.
 
cpwill said:
which is a non answer.
Click to expand...

It's always been odd what you call a nonanswer. The mere fact that people do infact interpret it differently should be enough to show you your error. It has nothing to do with having the text in font of you. So, I'm not really sure what you thought needed answering?



given that they considered the militia to be "the whole people", i'm not sure you could argue that they were first looking to maintain a citizen army as an end in its' own right.

however, even if they did, why does that rationale no longer apply?

and it seems that if you feel that it does, the answer is obvious - get public support and amend the Constitution. then it will be your intent that we should hew to.
Click to expand...

Because we're nto going to call on citzens that way today. Any threat we likely face won't be here, and anything here would require more that your shot gun. So largely, the entire rationale no longer exists.

And I don't beleive anythign changes without an amendment. And all I would like to see is some clarity for today. No major changes on how we function, but clarity that might help end some of the debate.
 
cpwill said:
which, within a fairly narrow range, isn't terribly difficult. heck, for the main body of the text I can purchase the original intent for $3 on my kindle.



no longer applies how?
Click to expand...

Wait, you are claiming that 3 people(probably), in expressing their opinions, spoke for every one? How about when they(probably Hamilton) opposed the bill of rights?
 
Yes.

second-amendment_bits.jpg
 
I don't read it "literally" but I do support the absolute meaning of the Constitution. Meaning that the wording and interpretation should not change over time.
 
digsbe said:
I don't read it "literally" but I do support the absolute meaning of the Constitution. Meaning that the wording and interpretation should not change over time.
Click to expand...

I just don't think that is possible.
 
Boo Radley said:
I just don't think that is possible.
Click to expand...

I think it's a legal document, and as such should not be altered at the whim of the reader's political opinions.
 
digsbe said:
I think it's a legal document, and as such should not be altered at the whim of the reader's political opinions.
Click to expand...

I never said at a whim. I just know how we view things changes over time, and our reality changes. The same word take on different meaning. So it is possible that it could change over time and everyone be trying to maintain the original intent.
 
The fact that many use various outside papers and writing is proof that the Constitution is not always clear, and sometimes needs interpretation. These outside papers and writings are merely helpful guidelines, and do not guarantee consensus.
 
Boo Radley said:
I never said at a whim. I just know how we view things changes over time, and our reality changes. The same word take on different meaning. So it is possible that it could change over time and everyone be trying to maintain the original intent.
Click to expand...

I agree here. Some changes are required over time as the people change. Unfortunately congress etc have been doing end runs around the Constitution by loosely interpreting it even when they Know for a fact, that is not what the law intended.

If the proper procedures were followed then I am all for the changes. End runs by "reinterpreting," not so much.
 
Boo Radley said:
I never said at a whim. I just know how we view things changes over time, and our reality changes. The same word take on different meaning. So it is possible that it could change over time and everyone be trying to maintain the original intent.
Click to expand...

It is a binding legal document and as such does not change with time. What was written and ratified is absolute and just like any law, should not have it's legal status altered due to personal opinions/interpretations. Theft will be theft unless the legal process chooses to redefine it. If someone believes that stealing from a rich man is not "theft" they are still bound by the law and will be punished accordingly. The Constitution is our highest Law and should be treated as a legal document. I believe there are things that need to be interpreted from the Constitution, but the meaning itself should not change without going through the proper amendment process.
 
No, I'm not. The constitution should be interpreted in whatever way is most beneficial to society.
 
molten_dragon said:
No, I'm not. The constitution should be interpreted in whatever way is most beneficial to society.
Click to expand...

And who gets to do the interpreting? Instead of changing it legally as it was set down in the Constitution. I am sorry but our elected representatives have shown they can't be trusted to do the will of the people. Instead they go by the will of whoever donates the most money to get them reelected.

It can legally be changed, no need to reinterpret it's original intent.
 
molten_dragon said:
No, I'm not. The constitution should be interpreted in whatever way is most beneficial to society.
Click to expand...

If this was the case, then why would we have a written constitution in the first place? Britain has no written constitution. They just go by whatever statutes are on the books.
 
Redress said:
Wait, you are claiming that 3 people(probably), in expressing their opinions, spoke for every one? How about when they(probably Hamilton) opposed the bill of rights?
Click to expand...

Its best to look at Madison for the constitution as he will know what his words mean. Hamilton is secondary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom