Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

Harry Guerrilla · Jul 2, 2010

the makeout hobo said:
But it isn't in paper. You're just interpreting the document to say things that clearly aren't on the paper of the constitution.

It is a digitized version of something that would be on paper.
Technological development makes no difference.

the makeout hobo said:
But a log in cyberspace of my browsing history isn't papers I own, and it isn't an effect of mine. It's physically on someone else's server and isn't anything I ever owned.

That somebody else has the same protections as you do.
It makes no difference.
It is their "effects."

the makeout hobo said:
Or for another example: I wear a black wristband as a sign of protest. My college says that it's a disruption, I say it's free speech. They respond that since I'm not saying anything or writing anything, it's not technically "speech" and isn't protected. Who is right?

Is the college privately owned and funded?
If so, they can do what they want in regards to speech.

Kandahar · Jul 2, 2010

Harry Guerrilla said:
Blah, blah, blah, more of this trite over argued, straw man crap.:roll:

Well then don't claim that you derive your political opinions from theirs, when you quite obviously do not.

Harry Guerrilla said:
So, I guess I'm smarter because I don't need to over study something written in dated but plain English.

Yes yes. It's very obvious that yours is the correct interpretation. The overwhelming majority of legal scholars who disagree are just blinded by their own personal views...but fortunately YOU are able to see past your personal views and interpret the document correctly. If the correct interpretation happens to match your personal politics, it's just a happy coincidence.

Do you realize you sound EXACTLY like a religious fundamentalist?

Harry Guerrilla said:
Yes, I believe in all of those things. :roll:

If you don't, then stop saying that you share their political opinions. Who specifically were you referring to, when you said that you derive your political views from theirs? Adams? Jefferson? Hamilton? Madison?

Harry Guerrilla said:
I'll give you 3 guesses on something that they all agreed on.

I really don't know what you're referring to, but whatever it is, they certainly didn't agree on everything, which makes it patently ridiculous to try to interpret the Constitution as the Founding Fathers would want.

Harry Guerrilla said:
221 years is a blip in terms of human development.
Human behaviors are largely still effected by the exact same things.

You just can't even fathom the concept that some of us believe that an urban, technological society of 300 million people should be governed differently than an agrarian, uneducated society of 10 million, can you?

Harry Guerrilla said:
Further, if you want to change The Constitution, there is a process for you to do so.

The problem is that the process on paper (a constitutional amendment) is generally too difficult to make important changes, hence all of the interpretations of the Constitution. It is doubtful that the Founding Fathers were thinking about a nation of 50 states with a relatively homogeneous culture when they wrote the amendment process.

Harry Guerrilla said:
There is 1 way to interpret the law, that is why it is law and not a guideline.

Good thing we have you to show us the one true way.

the makeout hobo · Jul 2, 2010

Harry Guerrilla said:
It is a digitized version of something that would be on paper.
Technological development makes no difference.

Why would it be on paper? it's an electronic file? you're putting your own spin on words in the constitution when they don't clearly say that.

That somebody else has the same protections as you do.
It makes no difference.
It is their "effects."

What if the government is making a log of every website I go to? that's the scenario I was suggesting

Is the college privately owned and funded?
If so, they can do what they want in regards to speech.

Assuming its a public college

Redbeard · Jul 2, 2010

Redress said:
Saying something true that has no relation to what you respond to does not refute in any way what you respond to.

I know, it went right over your head.

Harry Guerrilla · Jul 2, 2010

Kandahar said:
Well then don't claim that you derive your political opinions from theirs, when you quite obviously do not.

Says the guy wearing the stripes of a party who has had a history of segregation and slavery. :lol:

Kandahar said:
Yes yes. It's very obvious that yours is the correct interpretation. The overwhelming majority of legal scholars who disagree are just blinded by their own personal views...but fortunately YOU are able to see past your personal views and interpret the document correctly. If the correct interpretation happens to match your personal politics, it's just a happy coincidence.

Legal scholars don't hold a candle to the guys who actually wrote the document.
I've already explained this, if my political ideology is derived from the writers of the document, then why are you so surprised?

Kandahar said:
Do you realize you sound EXACTLY like a religious fundamentalist?

Except I'm not telling anyone to follow a specific religion.
I'm asking people to follow the law as written.
Which means, don't make me participate in egalitarian, fantasy, social programs that don't work.
Don't ban things based on your morality, as long as I'm not hurting anyone.
That kind of thing.

Kandahar said:
If you don't, then stop saying that you share their political opinions. Who specifically were you referring to, when you said that you derive your political views from theirs? Adams? Jefferson? Hamilton? Madison?

The people who all agreed on the defining legal document of the U.S. government.
The writers and signers of The Constitution.

Kandahar said:
I really don't know what you're referring to, but whatever it is, they certainly didn't agree on everything, which makes it patently ridiculous to try to interpret the Constitution as the Founding Fathers would want.

They all agreed on the limitations set out in The Constitution.
That's why they signed it.

Kandahar said:
You just can't even fathom the concept that some of us believe that an urban, technological society of 300 million people should be governed differently than an agrarian, uneducated society of 10 million, can you?

It makes no difference.
What should be changed?
Why?

You do know that The Constitution explicit limits the feds but not necessarily the states, which are free to do a lot of whatever they want.
You seem to want national conformity.

Kandahar said:
The problem is that the process on paper (a constitutional amendment) is generally too difficult to make important changes, hence all of the interpretations of the Constitution. It is doubtful that the Founding Fathers were thinking about a nation of 50 states with a relatively homogeneous culture when they wrote the amendment process.

There is good reason for that.
So the Federal government doesn't become an abusive monolith.

Kandahar said:
Good thing we have you to show us the one true way.

Yea, I mean if we didn't, we'd be in debt with a flopping economy.
Ohh wait.....:doh

Harry Guerrilla · Jul 2, 2010

the makeout hobo said:
Why would it be on paper? it's an electronic file? you're putting your own spin on words in the constitution when they don't clearly say that.

Because prior to digitization, everything was written on paper or nearly so.

the makeout hobo said:
What if the government is making a log of every website I go to? that's the scenario I was suggesting

They are clearly outside the bounds of their legal authority.
No where are they empowered to collect information on the casual habits of the populous, with the exception of the census.

the makeout hobo said:
Assuming its a public college

Public colleges are outside the bounds of the federal government.
Now state funded public colleges are another story but assuming we were going by the strict constitutional standard, they have to uphold your Bill of Rights.

the makeout hobo · Jul 2, 2010

Harry Guerrilla said:
Because prior to digitization, everything was written on paper or nearly so.

But prior to digitization this record wouldn't exist, so that's a moot point.

They are clearly outside the bounds of their legal authority.
No where are they empowered to collect information on the casual habits of the populous, with the exception of the census.

What if it was for a criminal investigation? Does the internet count as a public or private space? If a cop sees a pot plant in my front yard I can get in trouble for it, after all.

Public colleges are outside the bounds of the federal government.
Now state funded public colleges are another story but assuming we were going by the strict constitutional standard, they have to uphold your Bill of Rights.

The question was whether a arm band is free speech or not

Harry Guerrilla · Jul 2, 2010

the makeout hobo said:
But prior to digitization this record wouldn't exist, so that's a moot point.

True but it does count as a paper.
You'd count files on your computer that were, previously in paper form as paper as well.

the makeout hobo said:
What if it was for a criminal investigation? Does the internet count as a public or private space? If a cop sees a pot plant in my front yard I can get in trouble for it, after all.

If something is in plain view, as the pot plant is.
Yea it's not really a search because you can directly see it.

Criminal investigations are covered as long as there is probable cause.

the makeout hobo said:
The question was whether a arm band is free speech or not

I tend to side with no it isn't, I think the first amendment was clearly for vocal forms of speech.
I'd have no problem amending it to include symbolic forms though.

the makeout hobo · Jul 2, 2010

Harry Guerrilla said:
True but it does count as a paper.

Who says it counts as paper? you say no I say yes, who's right?

You'd count files on your computer that were, previously in paper form as paper as well.

But they're not paper now and the document, as written, says nothing about electronic files. Better amend it.

If something is in plain view, as the pot plant is.
Yea it's not really a search because you can directly see it.

Criminal investigations are covered as long as there is probable cause.

Well do my browsing records count as public or private? Why?

I tend to side with no it isn't, I think the first amendment was clearly for vocal forms of speech.
I'd have no problem amending it to include symbolic forms though.

I disagree and think that it's covered as a form of speech. How do we agree who is right?

Harry Guerrilla · Jul 2, 2010

the makeout hobo said:
Who says it counts as paper? you say no I say yes, who's right?

Technological progression does not change the situation.
If I only wrote on rocks instead of paper it will still be mine, while electronic versions of information is still in the possession of someone.

If you feel the need to amend the constitution for it, I'm game.
I think it would be a great addition to make concretely sure that all forms of information must be subject to due process.

the makeout hobo said:
But they're not paper now and the document, as written, says nothing about electronic files. Better amend it.

Those things are stored on private computers, which count as "effects."

the makeout hobo said:
Well do my browsing records count as public or private? Why?

Private, for the government to get these records, they have to, install spy ware or request them from a private individual.

the makeout hobo said:
I disagree and think that it's covered as a form of speech. How do we agree who is right?

Go to the text, that is the only way.
The amendment process was made in case things needed to be cleared up.

the makeout hobo · Jul 2, 2010

Harry Guerrilla said:
Technological progression does not change the situation.
If I only wrote on rocks instead of paper it will still be mine, while electronic versions of information is still in the possession of someone.

I would argue you have an activist interpretation since you're adding your own meaning to the word "papers"

If you feel the need to amend the constitution for it, I'm game.
I think it would be a great addition to make concretely sure that all forms of information must be subject to due process.

So do you admit the constitution is unclear here?

Those things are stored on private computers, which count as "effects."

But they're not computers, they're electronic code. I disagree that electronic code counts as effects.

Private, for the government to get these records, they have to, install spy ware or request them from a private individual.

That's your opinion, but the issue is unclear

Go to the text, that is the only way.
The amendment process was made in case things needed to be cleared up.

The text is unclear, we could both be right or wrong

Harry Guerrilla · Jul 2, 2010

the makeout hobo said:
I would argue you have an activist interpretation since you're adding your own meaning to the word "papers"

Well, then they count as effects because it is inside a persons computer.

the makeout hobo said:
So do you admit the constitution is unclear here?

It was clear because at that time, they only had papers and the like.

the makeout hobo said:
But they're not computers, they're electronic code. I disagree that electronic code counts as effects.

Computers count as effects, you have to get a warrant to search that.

the makeout hobo said:
That's your opinion, but the issue is unclear

I think it's pretty clear that their are few ways to collect this other than taking it via force or requesting it from someone.

the makeout hobo said:
The text is unclear, we could both be right or wrong

The text says speech.
Looking at the dictionary definition, it is only in reference to the spoken word.
Like I said though, I'd have no problem amending The Constitution to include expression as speech.

Rightwingnutjob · Jul 2, 2010

I would like to point out that (history etc.) are my effects and therefore are subject to protection under unreasonable search and seizure. Not sure how it could be argued that they aren't my effects.

BCR · Jul 3, 2010

She is qualified. Sure she never served as a judge but she was the dean at Harvard law school. Am I the only one who thinks that is more impressive than being a judge?

digsbe · Jul 3, 2010

I voted no. And I voted no because I feel Kagan has not proven to be a law enforcing judge strictly through the laws and not through her ideology. Her past shows that she is very ideological and will break laws in order to push her ideology and protest. I believe she is not able to objectively judge with the Constitution as law and will use her spot to judge based on her personal philosophy.

upsideguy · Jul 3, 2010

Harry Guerrilla said:
No, I don't think she will interpret "The Constitution" as written, so that pretty much disqualifies her from my pool of applicants.

So you must be really outraged with the Roberts court as a whole then. That Citizen's United case must have put 5 justices on your personal list of judges you would like to see off the court.

Kandahar · Jul 3, 2010

Harry Guerrilla said:
Says the guy wearing the stripes of a party who has had a history of segregation and slavery. :lol:

Yeah except I don't make any claim to derive my political views from those of segregationist Democrats. Or even modern Democrats, for that matter.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Legal scholars don't hold a candle to the guys who actually wrote the document.
I've already explained this, if my political ideology is derived from the writers of the document, then why are you so surprised?

And I've already explained this. The writers of the document were not a monolithic entity with a single political ideology. Who exactly are you talking about?

Harry Guerrilla said:
Except I'm not telling anyone to follow a specific religion.

Yes you are. You are telling people to follow the religion of constitutional originalism. Or more accurately, you're telling people to follow the religion of what modern conservative/libertarians BELIEVE is constitutional originalism.

Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm asking people to follow the law as written.
Which means, don't make me participate in egalitarian, fantasy, social programs that don't work.
Don't ban things based on your morality, as long as I'm not hurting anyone.
That kind of thing.

Yep, just like Pat Robertson is only asking people to follow the Bible as written. Obviously his is the only "correct" interpretation, and anyone who disagrees is either stupid, dishonest, or evil. Clearly determining the "correct" interpretation is easy, even though so many intelligent people disagree about it...but you've pretty much figured it out. :roll:

What makes you so certain that YOUR interpretation of the Constitution is so obviously correct?

Harry Guerrilla said:
They all agreed on the limitations set out in The Constitution.
That's why they signed it.

The Constitution was a compromise, not something that every Founding Father was completely behind. And what makes you think that they agreed how to interpret the Constitution even when it was written?

Harry Guerrilla said:
It makes no difference.
What should be changed?
Why?

You mean why shouldn't we govern ourselves the same way that people governed themselves 200 years ago in an agrarian society, that may as well have been a totally alien country? If you have to ask, I'm afraid no answer I give you can make you understand. Suffice it to say that modern America has a lot more in common with modern Europe than it does with 18th century America.

Harry Guerrilla said:
You do know that The Constitution explicit limits the feds but not necessarily the states, which are free to do a lot of whatever they want.
You seem to want national conformity.

In certain areas, yes.

Harry Guerrilla · Jul 3, 2010

Kandahar said:
Yeah except I don't make any claim to derive my political views from those of segregationist Democrats. Or even modern Democrats, for that matter.

Does it matter?
You perfectly fine using it to attempt to paint me as some sort of of racist, sexist bigot.

Turn about is fair play.

Kandahar said:
And I've already explained this. The writers of the document were not a monolithic entity with a single political ideology. Who exactly are you talking about?

All of them, they all agreed to the compromise.
Which turned out to be pretty damn good.

Kandahar said:
Yes you are. You are telling people to follow the religion of constitutional originalism. Or more accurately, you're telling people to follow the religion of what modern conservative/libertarians BELIEVE is constitutional originalism.

Nope.
I'm telling people that if they want to change the law, they need to do so in the prescribed manner.
Not make crap up out of thin air.

Big difference.

Kandahar said:
Yep, just like Pat Robertson is only asking people to follow the Bible as written. Obviously his is the only "correct" interpretation, and anyone who disagrees is either stupid, dishonest, or evil. Clearly determining the "correct" interpretation is easy, even though so many intelligent people disagree about it...but you've pretty much figured it out. :roll:

Except the Bible has gone through multiple variations and revisions.
Few, if any original texts of the bible exist, not to mention that it was translated from another language with high amounts of symbolic meaning.

Now The Constitution is written in English, dated English but it is none the less.
It uses all the common sentence structures and is the original document.
No I'm not making crap up, I'm reading what is right in front of my face.

It basically boils down to you and others like yourself, making excuses to not follow the law, in order to get your pet legislation enacted.

Kandahar said:
What makes you so certain that YOUR interpretation of the Constitution is so obviously correct?

It is written in English and I can read English.
Not that difficult.

Kandahar said:
The Constitution was a compromise, not something that every Founding Father was completely behind. And what makes you think that they agreed how to interpret the Constitution even when it was written?

If they signed it they authorized it as law.
I happen to agree with the compromise.

Laws have fixed meanings, they are not meant to flip and flop whenever it's convenient.

Kandahar said:
You mean why shouldn't we govern ourselves the same way that people governed themselves 200 years ago in an agrarian society, that may as well have been a totally alien country? If you have to ask, I'm afraid no answer I give you can make you understand. Suffice it to say that modern America has a lot more in common with modern Europe than it does with 18th century America.

A non answer.
What should be changed and why?

Kandahar · Jul 4, 2010

Harry Guerrilla said:
Does it matter?
You perfectly fine using it to attempt to paint me as some sort of of racist, sexist bigot.

Turn about is fair play.

I literally have no idea what you're talking about here. I don't think I've ever said anything that could be construed in that way. I said that your statement that you derive your political views from theirs is obviously not true since (I'm assuming) you DON'T support things like racism or misogyny. What you REALLY mean is that you support the Founding Fathers' political views when you want to, and you don't support them when you don't want to.

Harry Guerrilla said:
All of them, they all agreed to the compromise.
Which turned out to be pretty damn good.

They all agreed to affix their name to the text on a piece of paper. There is no indication that they agreed on how that piece of paper should be interpreted, even at the time they ratified it.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Nope.
I'm telling people that if they want to change the law, they need to do so in the prescribed manner.
Not make crap up out of thin air.

Why? The United States is a common law country; our legal system has ALWAYS been guided by precedent, tradition, and interpretation, rather than by passing a new law to address every conceivable situation. This is true now, it was true when the Constitution was written, and it was true when we were British colonies.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Except the Bible has gone through multiple variations and revisions.
Few, if any original texts of the bible exist, not to mention that it was translated from another language with high amounts of symbolic meaning.

Now The Constitution is written in English, dated English but it is none the less.
It uses all the common sentence structures and is the original document.
No I'm not making crap up, I'm reading what is right in front of my face.

It basically boils down to you and others like yourself, making excuses to not follow the law, in order to get your pet legislation enacted.

But basically what you're saying boils down to the same thing that Pat Robertson is saying: You know the one true way to interpret your sacred document, because it's extremely obvious. And anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is just ignoring the obvious truth because they're stupid, dishonest, or evil...not because there's any complex thinking required or legitimate difference of opinion involved here. :roll:

Harry Guerrilla said:
It is written in English and I can read English.
Not that difficult.

I'm pretty sure that all of the Supreme Court Justices are literate as well. Yet none of them share your fundamentalist views. So let me make sure I understand you correctly here: You're saying that the Supreme Court knows fully well the obvious truth of your interpretation of the Constitution...but they choose to ignore it for their own political purposes. Right?

Again, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that your OWN political views so closely match the one true interpretation of the Constitution. Nope, clearly YOU are interpreting "correctly," and they're all just interpreting it based on their own political views.

Harry Guerrilla said:
If they signed it they authorized it as law.
I happen to agree with the compromise.

Laws have fixed meanings, they are not meant to flip and flop whenever it's convenient.

Laws have ALWAYS evolved in meaning over time, and have been developed by judges as well as by legislators. This is the whole basis of a common law legal system.

Harry Guerrilla said:
A non answer.
What should be changed and why?

Are you really interested in discussing what I think should be changed in our current constitution? That sounds like an entirely different topic from this thread.

Harry Guerrilla · Jul 4, 2010

Kandahar said:
I literally have no idea what you're talking about here. I don't think I've ever said anything that could be construed in that way. I said that your statement that you derive your political views from theirs is obviously not true since (I'm assuming) you DON'T support things like racism or misogyny. What you REALLY mean is that you support the Founding Fathers' political views when you want to, and you don't support them when you don't want to.

Your initial statement was a juvenile attempt at character assassination.
You know damned well that I don't support those things, yet you just had to go drag out the tired and old "well they believed in slavery" crap ass argument.

Move on and don't use it, you're essentially treading in to Godwin territory.

Kandahar said:
They all agreed to affix their name to the text on a piece of paper. There is no indication that they agreed on how that piece of paper should be interpreted, even at the time they ratified it.

They added the amending process, that is pretty clear to me that any changes that needed to be made, should be done that way.

A little later did it only have to be "interpreted" because of federal power grabs.

Kandahar said:
Why? The United States is a common law country; our legal system has ALWAYS been guided by precedent, tradition, and interpretation, rather than by passing a new law to address every conceivable situation. This is true now, it was true when the Constitution was written, and it was true when we were British colonies.

Our system is not solely based on common law.
Laws exist to define the borders in which citizens and the government are restricted to.

Why are you so in favor of giving the government looser boundaries?

Kandahar said:
But basically what you're saying boils down to the same thing that Pat Robertson is saying: You know the one true way to interpret your sacred document, because it's extremely obvious. And anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is just ignoring the obvious truth because they're stupid, dishonest, or evil...not because there's any complex thinking required or legitimate difference of opinion involved here. :roll:

No I'm not, we aren't interpreting Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese etc.
We are reading a document in English, with plenty of follow up information defining exactly what the statutes in The Constitution relate to.

Have a problem with a specific meaning, take a wag at the Federalist papers.
Answer is delivered.

Want to change something, amend the damn thing.

Kandahar said:
I'm pretty sure that all of the Supreme Court Justices are literate as well. Yet none of them share your fundamentalist views. So let me make sure I understand you correctly here: You're saying that the Supreme Court knows fully well the obvious truth of your interpretation of the Constitution...but they choose to ignore it for their own political purposes. Right?

They interpret based on the social bias, political bias and many other things.

How else could 4 justices come to the conclusion, that the 2nd amendment wasn't meant for individuals?
How could the 5 that agreed, come to the conclusion that local restrictions can still be applied, even though it says "shall not be infringed?"

Kandahar said:
Again, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that your OWN political views so closely match the one true interpretation of the Constitution. Nope, clearly YOU are interpreting "correctly," and they're all just interpreting it based on their own political views.

I'm reading what it says.
I don't complicate things by adding all this other nonsense that it should be "interpreted" as if it were written in a foreign, symbolic language.

If it were meant to be interpreted in such a way, they wouldn't have added the option of amending it.

Kandahar said:
Laws have ALWAYS evolved in meaning over time, and have been developed by judges as well as by legislators. This is the whole basis of a common law legal system.

Not all laws and not in all situations.

Kandahar said:
Are you really interested in discussing what I think should be changed in our current constitution? That sounds like an entirely different topic from this thread.

You said it needed to be adaptable to now.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what needs to be adapted, in your view.

the makeout hobo · Jul 4, 2010

They interpret based on the social bias, political bias and many other things.

How else could 4 justices come to the conclusion, that the 2nd amendment wasn't meant for individuals? [/quote]
What was the rationale they gave in their dissenting opinion?

How could the 5 that agreed, come to the conclusion that local restrictions can still be applied, even though it says "shall not be infringed?"

Again, what did they say in their opinion? If you want to know the answer to these questions, it's not hard to find.

Kandahar · Jul 4, 2010

Harry Guerrilla said:
Your initial statement was a juvenile attempt at character assassination.
You know damned well that I don't support those things, yet you just had to go drag out the tired and old "well they believed in slavery" crap ass argument.

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.

Harry Guerrilla said:
They added the amending process, that is pretty clear to me that any changes that needed to be made, should be done that way.

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.

Harry Guerrilla said:
A little later did it only have to be "interpreted" because of federal power grabs.

The Constitution has been interpreted ever since the ink was still wet.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Our system is not solely based on common law.
Laws exist to define the borders in which citizens and the government are restricted to.

Why are you so in favor of giving the government looser boundaries?

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.

Harry Guerrilla said:
No I'm not, we aren't interpreting Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese etc.
We are reading a document in English, with plenty of follow up information defining exactly what the statutes in The Constitution relate to.

Have a problem with a specific meaning, take a wag at the Federalist papers.
Answer is delivered.

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.

Harry Guerrilla said:
They interpret based on the social bias, political bias and many other things.

But of course, your own interpretations have none of that bias. They're the correct view.

Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm reading what it says.
I don't complicate things by adding all this other nonsense that it should be "interpreted" as if it were written in a foreign, symbolic language.

OK, take a crack at this passage. Tell me how I should interpret this from a constitutional fundamentalist perspective:

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

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

Harry Guerrilla said:
If it were meant to be interpreted in such a way, they wouldn't have added the option of amending it.

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.)

Harry Guerrilla said:
You said it needed to be adaptable to now.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what needs to be adapted, in your view.

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 makeout hobo · Jul 4, 2010

One point I don't really see from people of HG's philosophy is the role of the Supreme Court. The constitution essentially lets the Supreme Court be the finer arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional. The constitution, legally, means what the SC says it means.

Harry Guerrilla · Jul 4, 2010

the makeout hobo said:
One point I don't really see from people of HG's philosophy is the role of the Supreme Court. The constitution essentially lets the Supreme Court be the finer arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional. The constitution, legally, means what the SC says it means.

I don't agree with that.

If the Supreme Court clearly contradicts the wording, they are wrong and it shouldn't be supported.

As an example, if they said you don't have freedom of religion, would you believe that was what the original law was meant to say?

the makeout hobo · Jul 4, 2010

Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't agree with that.

If the Supreme Court clearly contradicts the wording, they are wrong and it shouldn't be supported.

As an example, if they said you don't have freedom of religion, would you believe that was what the original law was meant to say?

Show me where the Constitution disagrees with me.

Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

Should the Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

Yes

No

I don't know

Enemy Combatant

Rockin' In The Free World

Rockin' In The Free World

Rockin' In The Free World

Rockin' In The Free World

Active member

Well-known member

Truth will set you free

Pragmatic Idealist

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Rockin' In The Free World

Enemy Combatant

Rockin' In The Free World

Rockin' In The Free World