- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
When did he make that point?
:roll:
I assume he wasn't just asking that question for no reason.
When did he make that point?
Me too -- that he was looking for information.:roll:
I assume he wasn't just asking that question for no reason.
The rifleman is not irrelevant to modern warfare; ultimately, when the bombers and cruise missles have stopped flying, all ground is taken and held by the rifleman. Bombers, missles and so on can be countered to a large degree by 4th Generation Warfare methods. The existence of a citizen militia is a deterrent to tyranny and invasion still. The Afgani Mujahadeen kept the Russian Army in a mess for many years with little more than rifles, a few support weapons, and guerilla tactics.
G.
Roe v Wade is an example.
Still looking for a response...What do YOU see as the limit, and how does that limit jive with established precedent?
Me too -- that he was looking for information.
As I said, and as no one has commented:Fine, whatever, *I* am making that point then. How do you claim to be able to discern the "original intent," when some of the ratifiers wrote things that were directly at odds with one another, and the vast majority wrote nothing at all?
As I said, and as no one has commented:
The people that wrote the constitution wrote what they wrote for good reason. As such, their intent matters considerably as their the logic and reasoning is the basis for the structure of the document and the context for everything in it.
The exact details of this do not have to have universal acceptance among the people that put the Constitution together for that to stand.
The most? Of course not.Let's not kid ourselves. The constitution isn't exactly the most black & white document there is.
The most? Of course not.
But, mostly so; those that disagree are those most interested in not bothering with amending it in order to do sometihng they want to do.
I did:Consider all the ways that scholars and judges have interpreted the same parts of the constitution.
I did:
...those that disagree are those most interested in not bothering with amending it in order to do sometihng they want to do.
I did:
...those that disagree are those most interested in not bothering with amending it in order to do sometihng they want to do.
Clearly.That is the essence of "living, breathing Constitution" theory, yes.
Fine, whatever, *I* am making that point then. How do you claim to be able to discern the "original intent," when some of the ratifiers wrote things that were directly at odds with one another, and the vast majority wrote nothing at all?
I did:
...those that disagree are those most interested in not bothering with amending it in order to do sometihng they want to do.
If the argument behind that sentiment were valid, then there's be no need for Article I section 8 to contain any clauses other than the first and the last.The silly idea of the socialists that the "General Welfare" clause is a blank check has no merit.
As I said, and as no one has commented:
The people that wrote the constitution wrote what they wrote for good reason. As such, their intent matters considerably as their the logic and reasoning is the basis for the structure of the document and the context for everything in it.
Goobieman said:The exact details of this do not have to have universal acceptance among the people that put the Constitution together for that to stand.
You read what they wrote.
BOTH Alexander Hamilton and James Madison stated that the Constitution granted SPECIFIC and ENUMERATED powers to Congress, beyond which the Congress was not permitted to trespass.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:The silly idea of the socialists that the "General Welfare" clause is a blank check has no merit.
For that matter, why not just explicitly state in the Constitution that it should be followed with the original intent in mind?
And the silly idea of the originalists that the existence of the Ninth Amendment isn't an explicit rebuke of that view has no merit.
They did so, by writing it down.
"Rebuke" of what?
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Founding Fathers expected future generations to follow their original intent. You'd think that with so many brilliant legal minds, someone might have thought to write that down if it was the consensus view. Kind of an important point to forget.
Dude, the whole point of a written constitution in the first place is to solidify things.
Harshaw said:(Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "read these words, o ye future Generations, in the light deemed most Favorable to your current whims" either.)