• 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!

How interpretation has weakened our Constitution

M

MeThePeople

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
149
Reaction score
16
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
As I read through several posts I was not amazed by the level of interpretation by people to make the Constitution mean what they want it to say.
The Preamble to the Constitution lays out the intent of the meanaing of the document and how EVERYONE should understand its meaning. Those men who wrote the Constitution did so with deliberation.
The intent of every law shall be the same and interpreted...in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
The Supreme court rarely refers to the preamble when it makes decisions. It is politically motivated
I doubt that ANY elected individual can even recite the preamble and yet they continue to be re-elected term after term by people who dont know the preamble.
PLEASE READ the Constitution from first word to last so we can save this American Nation
 
MeThePeople said:
As I read through several posts I was not amazed by the level of interpretation by people to make the Constitution mean what they want it to say.
The Preamble to the Constitution lays out the intent of the meanaing of the document and how EVERYONE should understand its meaning. Those men who wrote the Constitution did so with deliberation.
The intent of every law shall be the same and interpreted...in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
The Supreme court rarely refers to the preamble when it makes decisions. It is politically motivated
I doubt that ANY elected individual can even recite the preamble and yet they continue to be re-elected term after term by people who dont know the preamble.
PLEASE READ the Constitution from first word to last so we can save this American Nation
Click to expand...

"in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

Problem is these are all extremely subjective subjects.... In my opinion, origonalism and taking the constitution literal is the best, most objective way of making the Constitution strong. If people do not like the originalist/literal interpretation... they should draft an amendment that makes it absolutely clear what they want to change.

I think the 10th amendment is the one that is the most forgotten, and one should be enforced more.
 
MeThePeople said:
As I read through several posts I was not amazed by the level of interpretation by people to make the Constitution mean what they want it to say.
The Preamble to the Constitution lays out the intent of the meanaing of the document and how EVERYONE should understand its meaning. Those men who wrote the Constitution did so with deliberation.
The intent of every law shall be the same and interpreted...in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
The Supreme court rarely refers to the preamble when it makes decisions. It is politically motivated
I doubt that ANY elected individual can even recite the preamble and yet they continue to be re-elected term after term by people who dont know the preamble.
PLEASE READ the Constitution from first word to last so we can save this American Nation
Click to expand...
Originalism spawned out of Religious Fundamentalism. It treats the Founders interpretations (which varied) on the particular clauses of the Constitution as nearly divinely inspired like the inerrant Bible. Both make the same hermeneutical mistake, and both are woefully out of touch with reality.

Sorry we have learned a few things since the 1780s, and the way it is that the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution per Marbury v Madison. You can't just ignore history.
 
In the case of Marbury v.Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), the Supreme Court ruled that it was overturning the US Constitution, declaring the American Revolution was wrong and that the United States would instead return to British Common law. The declared the United States does NOT have "3 equal branches of government" and completely vetoed democratic and republic forms of government.

Instead, the Supreme Court declared they are all powerful over everything and everyone - and that elections, citizens, the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights are no more relevant to anything other than what the members of the Supreme Court want as absolute total dictatorial oligarchs. We do not live in a democratic republic form of government. We live in a country ruled by a lifelong judicial oligarchy of absolute power.

Thomas Jefferson, author of the US Constitution was outraged and recognized this was a total coup against the Constitution and government by the Supreme Court, explaining the authors of the Constitution NEVER even considered the federal courts to have ANY role in government or policy other than to decide civil and criminal lawsuits. It was never even considered that courts could 100% erase what the voters, Congress and/or the President did.

Yet today nearly everyone agrees to judicial tyranny and dictatorship - a price paid for having a government of lawyers, by lawyers, for lawyers. Personally, I think lawyers should lose their law license while in any government office requiring they take an oath of office - since their lawyer's duty and oath is the diametric opposite of the oath of public office.
 
celticwar17 said:
"in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

Problem is these are all extremely subjective subjects.... In my opinion, origonalism and taking the constitution literal is the best, most objective way of making the Constitution strong. If people do not like the originalist/literal interpretation... they should draft an amendment that makes it absolutely clear what they want to change.

I think the 10th amendment is the one that is the most forgotten, and one should be enforced more.
Click to expand...

The originalist interpretation of the constitution was rejected... by the very authors of the constitution. The wording of the tenth amendment does not state that the powers of the federal government have to be explicitly stated, there are some powers that are implied.

McCulloch v. Maryland is case in point.
 
What a wonderful display of ignorance, lack of education and self serving tripe by the originalists.
 
MeThePeople said:
As I read through several posts I was not amazed by the level of interpretation by people to make the Constitution mean what they want it to say.
The Preamble to the Constitution lays out the intent of the meanaing of the document and how EVERYONE should understand its meaning. Those men who wrote the Constitution did so with deliberation.
The intent of every law shall be the same and interpreted...in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
The Supreme court rarely refers to the preamble when it makes decisions. It is politically motivated
I doubt that ANY elected individual can even recite the preamble and yet they continue to be re-elected term after term by people who dont know the preamble.
PLEASE READ the Constitution from first word to last so we can save this American Nation
Click to expand...

that is the basis of pretty much all of law, interpretation of words. Words have different meanings, and a string of words together can also have different meanings. tha'ts what SCOTUS is for,. Unfortunately republicans have stocked the courts with right wing pro-corporate hacks that do nothing but rule in favor of corporations, screwing the people they are supposed to protect.

And the writers of the constitution but in a judicial branch in the constitution. and I'm sorry, any legal document you can't claim what the intention was after the fact. If I write a contract with someone, they challenge the meaning, I can't go and said "but I meant this". Doesn't work that way.

The bill of rights and amendments are incredibly short, that leaves a lot of wiggle room for interpretation. For example, right to bear arms, what is meant by arms? Back then it was a musket. now arms can even represent a suitcase nuke, among many other types of arms. What is meant by infringed? Isn't not allowed to have guns in courts, schools, plane and other places technically "infringed"? And if you can get access to a rifle, but no other type of guns, is your right really "infringed"? you are free to bear arms. 2nd amendment doesn't explicitly state what it is.

this is why legal documents are really long. That's why congressional bills are thousands of pages. Everything has to be explicitely stated or there is not clarity
 
joko104 said:
In the case of Marbury v.Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), the Supreme Court ruled that it was overturning the US Constitution, declaring the American Revolution was wrong and that the United States would instead return to British Common law. The declared the United States does NOT have "3 equal branches of government" and completely vetoed democratic and republic forms of government.

Instead, the Supreme Court declared they are all powerful over everything and everyone - and that elections, citizens, the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights are no more relevant to anything other than what the members of the Supreme Court want as absolute total dictatorial oligarchs. We do not live in a democratic republic form of government. We live in a country ruled by a lifelong judicial oligarchy of absolute power.

Thomas Jefferson, author of the US Constitution was outraged and recognized this was a total coup against the Constitution and government by the Supreme Court, explaining the authors of the Constitution NEVER even considered the federal courts to have ANY role in government or policy other than to decide civil and criminal lawsuits. It was never even considered that courts could 100% erase what the voters, Congress and/or the President did.

Yet today nearly everyone agrees to judicial tyranny and dictatorship - a price paid for having a government of lawyers, by lawyers, for lawyers. Personally, I think lawyers should lose their law license while in any government office requiring they take an oath of office - since their lawyer's duty and oath is the diametric opposite of the oath of public office.
Click to expand...

This is not true. SCOTUS can rule on the meaning of the laws and how it fits into constitutionality. the Legislative branch can draft legislation based on that. If SCOTUS makes a ruling, the legislative branch can change the law or amend the constitution. For example, the citizen's united ruiling, congress can write laws that effectively overturns Citizens United.

The government works just as it was intended
 
joko104 said:
In the case of Marbury v.Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), the Supreme Court ruled that it was overturning the US Constitution, declaring the American Revolution was wrong and that the United States would instead return to British Common law. The declared the United States does NOT have "3 equal branches of government" and completely vetoed democratic and republic forms of government.

Instead, the Supreme Court declared they are all powerful over everything and everyone - and that elections, citizens, the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights are no more relevant to anything other than what the members of the Supreme Court want as absolute total dictatorial oligarchs. We do not live in a democratic republic form of government. We live in a country ruled by a lifelong judicial oligarchy of absolute power.

Thomas Jefferson, author of the US Constitution was outraged and recognized this was a total coup against the Constitution and government by the Supreme Court, explaining the authors of the Constitution NEVER even considered the federal courts to have ANY role in government or policy other than to decide civil and criminal lawsuits. It was never even considered that courts could 100% erase what the voters, Congress and/or the President did.

Yet today nearly everyone agrees to judicial tyranny and dictatorship - a price paid for having a government of lawyers, by lawyers, for lawyers. Personally, I think lawyers should lose their law license while in any government office requiring they take an oath of office - since their lawyer's duty and oath is the diametric opposite of the oath of public office.
Click to expand...

This is why the left must rely on the courts as the constitution is a barrier to their power grab. We have seen several examples over the last couple of years.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The originalist interpretation of the constitution was rejected... by the very authors of the constitution. The wording of the tenth amendment does not state that the powers of the federal government have to be explicitly stated, there are some powers that are implied.

McCulloch v. Maryland is case in point.
Click to expand...

I disagree...

The authors allowed the constitution to be amended... That's what can change it....

It was NOT intended that you can put in a Judge who thinks No means Yes and Yes means No..

Your interpretation of the how we should use the COnstituion will be the end of civilization as we know it. The constitutions is the only thing holding the USA back from elitist, dictator rule(Even more so than now). It is important to have near unanimous consent of all the states to change anything that is significant.

AND I am fully aware you think the 10th amendment should has zero use and consequence. Dictators think the same way...
 
The bill of rights and amendments are incredibly short, that leaves a lot of wiggle room for interpretation. For example, right to bear arms, what is meant by arms? Back then it was a musket. now arms can even represent a suitcase nuke, among many other types of arms. What is meant by infringed? Isn't not allowed to have guns in courts, schools, plane and other places technically "infringed"? And if you can get access to a rifle, but no other type of guns, is your right really "infringed"? you are free to bear arms. 2nd amendment doesn't explicitly state what it is.

this is why legal documents are really long. That's why congressional bills are thousands of pages. Everything has to be explicitely stated or there is not clarity
Click to expand...

Attempts to cast doubt on the meaning and intent is the gateway to interpretation. Interpretation opens the door to gray areas of doubt that become nearly impossible to define.
Taking a scene from a popular text:"...And the serpent said to the woman 'Is it true that He said "Do not eat of every tree in the garden'?" And the woman said 'We are to eat of the fruit of the trees, but the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden we are not to eat nor touch, lest ye die". The serpent said "You shall certainly not die. He knows that if you eat of it htat you will be like him knowing good and evil". The first lesson of interpretation as taught by the serpent. I think we know how the rest of the story turns out
 
MeThePeople said:
As I read through several posts I was not amazed by the level of interpretation by people to make the Constitution mean what they want it to say.
Click to expand...

If you think those posts are compelling, wait til you get to the entirety of American history starting in the early 1790s or so.
 
TrueScotsman said:
Originalism spawned out of Religious Fundamentalism. It treats the Founders interpretations (which varied) on the particular clauses of the Constitution as nearly divinely inspired like the inerrant Bible.
Click to expand...

Hogwash. Originalism is the very job of a judge. There is no room for judges to "interpret it with the times", as that is specifically not their job. To do such is to wrote legislation and create amendments, which is specifically the job of the legislature or the legislatures of the states, respectively. It's the very construct of the separate powers.

Sorry we have learned a few things since the 1780s, and the way it is that the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution per Marbury v Madison. You can't just ignore history.
Click to expand...

And where this has ben identified it has been changed via the proper way, via constitutional amendment. All other methods are a violation of the rule of law and the Constitution and creates what I call an accepted tyranny.
 
celticwar17 said:
I disagree...

The authors allowed the constitution to be amended... That's what can change it....

It was NOT intended that you can put in a Judge who thinks No means Yes and Yes means No..

Your interpretation of the how we should use the COnstituion will be the end of civilization as we know it. The constitutions is the only thing holding the USA back from elitist, dictator rule(Even more so than now). It is important to have near unanimous consent of all the states to change anything that is significant.

AND I am fully aware you think the 10th amendment should has zero use and consequence. Dictators think the same way...
Click to expand...

So John Marshall got it wrong?
 
joko104 said:
In the case of Marbury v.Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), the Supreme Court ruled that it was overturning the US Constitution, declaring the American Revolution was wrong and that the United States would instead return to British Common law. The declared the United States does NOT have "3 equal branches of government" and completely vetoed democratic and republic forms of government.

Instead, the Supreme Court declared they are all powerful over everything and everyone - and that elections, citizens, the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights are no more relevant to anything other than what the members of the Supreme Court want as absolute total dictatorial oligarchs. We do not live in a democratic republic form of government. We live in a country ruled by a lifelong judicial oligarchy of absolute power.

Thomas Jefferson, author of the US Constitution was outraged and recognized this was a total coup against the Constitution and government by the Supreme Court, explaining the authors of the Constitution NEVER even considered the federal courts to have ANY role in government or policy other than to decide civil and criminal lawsuits. It was never even considered that courts could 100% erase what the voters, Congress and/or the President did.

Yet today nearly everyone agrees to judicial tyranny and dictatorship - a price paid for having a government of lawyers, by lawyers, for lawyers. Personally, I think lawyers should lose their law license while in any government office requiring they take an oath of office - since their lawyer's duty and oath is the diametric opposite of the oath of public office.
Click to expand...

Tommy boy was in France when the constitution was written. He did not write it.
 
MeThePeople said:
Attempts to cast doubt on the meaning and intent is the gateway to interpretation. Interpretation opens the door to gray areas of doubt that become nearly impossible to define.
Taking a scene from a popular text:"...And the serpent said to the woman 'Is it true that He said "Do not eat of every tree in the garden'?" And the woman said 'We are to eat of the fruit of the trees, but the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden we are not to eat nor touch, lest ye die". The serpent said "You shall certainly not die. He knows that if you eat of it htat you will be like him knowing good and evil". The first lesson of interpretation as taught by the serpent. I think we know how the rest of the story turns out
Click to expand...

Popular text = Bible :roll:
 
The strength of the constitution is in its vagueness. Adaptability is the hallmark of American government, and the only quality that can make any government impervious to the dangers of progress.
 
Lursa said:
Popular text = Bible :roll:
Click to expand...

did u google that, know it from reading the Bible or just playing a hunch? Actually I think a similar story plays out in other religious texts also. I'll check on that and get back to you
 
lwf said:
The strength of the constitution is in its vagueness. Adaptability is the hallmark of American government, and the only quality that can make any government impervious to the dangers of progress.
Click to expand...

OMG! Are you kidding me!
Intent and purpose of US Constitution as follows: to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
I would not call that vague.
And then there are those vague and pesky, left for SCOTUS interpretation, Amendments.
Have you met Flying J yet? You two have to meet
 
The strength of MY constitution is being diminished by the SCOTUS in their every interpretation to satisfy the minority groups in this country. THE GENERAL WELFARE it says.
So when one minority group gets it's way then the next minority group says 'hey, what about us, we vote too, for liberals". So then the liberals go find more minority groups to tickle their ears with promises, " make me your representative and I'll give you liberal justices in the supreme court and we will make it your right to do what ever it is you want to do".
AND LOOK AT AMERICA. It isn't a more perfect union. It's divided in so many different ways nothing is getting done.
And now liberalism has ushered in the practice of Sharia law into our country. Its happening in New York.
Muslim communities even have their own 'Religious Patrols' in their neighborhoods, right here in America.
GOOD JOB LIBERALS. I think you people need a good dose of Sharia Law. And your going to receive it due time.
Wait till you see their 'liberal ' position on abortion, homosexuality, adultery and womens clothing.
And you know with the interpretation of the religion clause by the SCOTUS, Sharia law has protection. And oil money keeps it well funded
 
Last edited:
MeThePeople said:
did u google that, know it from reading the Bible or just playing a hunch? Actually I think a similar story plays out in other religious texts also. I'll check on that and get back to you
Click to expand...

I grew up in the church.

But I did wonder why you tried to obscure it?
 
MeThePeople said:
OMG! Are you kidding me!
Intent and purpose of US Constitution as follows: to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
I would not call that vague.
And then there are those vague and pesky, left for SCOTUS interpretation, Amendments.
Click to expand...

Amendments are part of the Constitution. Do you think other countries have different goals?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom