Interview with Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) on Reading the Constitution

really? which interviews are you talking about? i'm curious.

i've seen o'reilly shut off the mic on anyone he disagreed with, including, iirc, the son of a 9/11 victim. i've seen hannity talk to anyone he disagrees with as if he were a traitor. i've seen them distort facts. i've never quite seen anyone hem and haw and act all indignant. it may have happened, but i'm kind of wondering who we're talking about.

i know that when the president went on o'reilly, however, he did a very good job and o'reilly liked and respected him. i don't recall baby bush ever being interviewed by a liberal.

i do know that when rand paul was inteviewed by maddow, he was so humiliaited by his own words that he never again allowed himself to be interviewed by national media again. and i know that goodlatte (and you're right... great name), he humiliated himself.

i'll be happy to go look up the video of any democrat who hemmed and hawwed and was cowed by the mighty interviewers at foxnews.

Check Oddball's post just before this one.
Most of Barney Franks post
(crap drawing a blank) The black minster guy oldwhatshisname with the combed back hair.

I don't watch Hannity, he's a bit of an ass and reminds me of Olberman.

with O'Riely, you run into time constraints. he doesn't have of give anyone time to blather on ane on. He asks straight questions and expects straight answers. Wondering off topic isn't tolerated.

yeah, i saw his post. just because he says that it was a bad interview doesn't make it a bad interview. in fact, i thought he did rather well. but then again, i'm not reading what some blogger says about the interview... i actually watched it just now.

Fox News Megyn Kelly Anthony Weiner Interview

the congressman made megyn kelly look really stupid because he kept answering her and she kept talking over him being really belligerant. i didn't see him hem and haw at all in that 11 minute segment ... did you? i did see him roll his eyes as she talked over him and finally just stop and clap his hands together waiting for her to shut up. try watching it instead of assuming that because someone with an agenda says something that it's true.

o'reilly didn't shut off anyone's mic because he ran out of time. he shut their mic because he didn't want anyone disagreeing with him as he shouted them down. i will say that since beck came around, o'reilly's mellowed and kind of become the semi-sane voice at fox.

That wasn't the interview that I saw, where he was asking himself questions.

I have crappy googlefu, so no worries.
 
I believe the Constitution is a living document, those who argue original intent are full of shit. A careful reading of Article I, section 8 might give pause to the conservatives who have demagouged the issue. In particular those who supported the war powers act, abdicating their constitutional duty on the declaraton of war (in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, as well as smaller invasions of Panama and Grenada) and as to Militias (see clauses 15 & 16) in relation to the second amendment rights they give total support.

translation: we demonRats want to change the constitution to suit our ideas of what we think is needed to bring down the EVil America.. aka "Fundamentally change The United States of America" methinks it was their messiah who uttered these words.
 
I believe the Constitution is a living document, those who argue original intent are full of shit. A careful reading of Article I, section 8 might give pause to the conservatives who have demagouged the issue. In particular those who supported the war powers act, abdicating their constitutional duty on the declaraton of war (in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, as well as smaller invasions of Panama and Grenada) and as to Militias (see clauses 15 & 16) in relation to the second amendment rights they give total support.

translation: we demonRats want to change the constitution to suit our ideas of what we think is needed to bring down the EVil America.. aka "Fundamentally change The United States of America" methinks it was their messiah who uttered these words.

Thanks for sharing and for bumping my thoughts. Now, explain the original intent of Article I, section 8 in re Militias and to declare war.
 
I believe the Constitution is a living document, those who argue original intent are full of shit. A careful reading of Article I, section 8 might give pause to the conservatives who have demagouged the issue. In particular those who supported the war powers act, abdicating their constitutional duty on the declaraton of war (in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, as well as smaller invasions of Panama and Grenada) and as to Militias (see clauses 15 & 16) in relation to the second amendment rights they give total support.

translation: we demonRats want to change the constitution to suit our ideas of what we think is needed to bring down the EVil America.. aka "Fundamentally change The United States of America" methinks it was their messiah who uttered these words.

Yeah..that's why they wanted to get rid of the 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th amendments. Oh wait..no..that's conservatives.

And they also blather on and on about the Articles of Conferation.
 
I believe the Constitution is a living document, those who argue original intent are full of shit. A careful reading of Article I, section 8 might give pause to the conservatives who have demagouged the issue. In particular those who supported the war powers act, abdicating their constitutional duty on the declaraton of war (in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, as well as smaller invasions of Panama and Grenada) and as to Militias (see clauses 15 & 16) in relation to the second amendment rights they give total support.

translation: we demonRats want to change the constitution to suit our ideas of what we think is needed to bring down the EVil America.. aka "Fundamentally change The United States of America" methinks it was their messiah who uttered these words.

Thanks for sharing and for bumping my thoughts. Now, explain the original intent of Article I, section 8 in re Militias and to declare war.






why?
 
translation: we demonRats want to change the constitution to suit our ideas of what we think is needed to bring down the EVil America.. aka "Fundamentally change The United States of America" methinks it was their messiah who uttered these words.

Thanks for sharing and for bumping my thoughts. Now, explain the original intent of Article I, section 8 in re Militias and to declare war.

why?

Why not? You believe in original intent (unless my inference is incorrect). Do you hold that opinon without conviction? Because someone told you to hold that opinon? Or because it's part of RW dogma, and being a right winger you can't or won't examine the beliefs you hold?

Oh, and btw, editing out the entire 'conversation' is an example of censorship - which seems to be a conservative value.

[I believe the Constitution is a living document, those who argue original intent are full of shit. A careful reading of Article I, section 8 might give pause to the conservatives who have demagouged the issue. In particular those who supported the war powers act, abdicating their constitutional duty on the declaraton of war (in Vietnam and Iraq, as well as smaller invasions of Panama and Grenada) and as to Militias (see clauses 15 & 16) in relation to the second amendment rights they give total support.]

by the way, in the interest of full disclosure I edited out Korea. Of course the war powers act was passed well after our action in Korea, which was in fact undertaken as an action of the UN
 
Last edited:
Thanks for sharing and for bumping my thoughts. Now, explain the original intent of Article I, section 8 in re Militias and to declare war.

why?

Why not? You believe in original intent (unless my inference is incorrect). Do you hold that opinon without conviction? Because someone told you to hold that opinon? Or because it's part of RW dogma, and being a right winger you can't or won't examine the beliefs you hold?

Oh, and btw, editing out the entire 'conversation' is an example of censorship - which seems to be a conservative value.

[I believe the Constitution is a living document, those who argue original intent are full of shit. A careful reading of Article I, section 8 might give pause to the conservatives who have demagouged the issue. In particular those who supported the war powers act, abdicating their constitutional duty on the declaraton of war (in Vietnam and Iraq, as well as smaller invasions of Panama and Grenada) and as to Militias (see clauses 15 & 16) in relation to the second amendment rights they give total support.]

by the way, in the interest of full disclosure I edited out Korea. Of course the war powers act was passed well after our action in Korea, which was in fact undertaken as an action of the UN

It has been a living document has it not? If not why all the amendments? You want to change it? Put forth some amendments.. It takes what? 3/5 of the states to ratify???
 
I believe the Constitution is a living document, those who argue original intent are full of shit. A careful reading of Article I, section 8 might give pause to the conservatives who have demagouged the issue. In particular those who supported the war powers act, abdicating their constitutional duty on the declaraton of war (in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, as well as smaller invasions of Panama and Grenada) and as to Militias (see clauses 15 & 16) in relation to the second amendment rights they give total support.

Next time you want to do something besides what's in your contract for lease or mortgage on your domicile, you try telling the other party that it's a "living document" and needs to be "interpreted" according to how people think now, not back in the time it was signed. That the terms are too so odd and abstract that they can't be understood by today's people.

The Constitution is a social contract between the people and the government that they chose to establish in state by state (ensuring the federal character of the governmental form) ratifying conventions (and not by vote of state legislatures). It is not any more confusing or less binding than any other contract.
 

Why not? You believe in original intent (unless my inference is incorrect). Do you hold that opinon without conviction? Because someone told you to hold that opinon? Or because it's part of RW dogma, and being a right winger you can't or won't examine the beliefs you hold?

Oh, and btw, editing out the entire 'conversation' is an example of censorship - which seems to be a conservative value.

[I believe the Constitution is a living document, those who argue original intent are full of shit. A careful reading of Article I, section 8 might give pause to the conservatives who have demagouged the issue. In particular those who supported the war powers act, abdicating their constitutional duty on the declaraton of war (in Vietnam and Iraq, as well as smaller invasions of Panama and Grenada) and as to Militias (see clauses 15 & 16) in relation to the second amendment rights they give total support.]

by the way, in the interest of full disclosure I edited out Korea. Of course the war powers act was passed well after our action in Korea, which was in fact undertaken as an action of the UN

It has been a living document has it not? If not why all the amendments? You want to change it? Put forth some amendments.. It takes what? 3/5 of the states to ratify???

Change? You really don't understand the question, yet are quick with glib answers. In Marbury v. Madison (1803) judicial review was established which helped establish the checks and balances which have long held the union in good service. Judicial Review does not change the Constitution, only amendments have that ability.
 
Why not? You believe in original intent (unless my inference is incorrect). Do you hold that opinon without conviction? Because someone told you to hold that opinon? Or because it's part of RW dogma, and being a right winger you can't or won't examine the beliefs you hold?

Oh, and btw, editing out the entire 'conversation' is an example of censorship - which seems to be a conservative value.

[I believe the Constitution is a living document, those who argue original intent are full of shit. A careful reading of Article I, section 8 might give pause to the conservatives who have demagouged the issue. In particular those who supported the war powers act, abdicating their constitutional duty on the declaraton of war (in Vietnam and Iraq, as well as smaller invasions of Panama and Grenada) and as to Militias (see clauses 15 & 16) in relation to the second amendment rights they give total support.]

by the way, in the interest of full disclosure I edited out Korea. Of course the war powers act was passed well after our action in Korea, which was in fact undertaken as an action of the UN

It has been a living document has it not? If not why all the amendments? You want to change it? Put forth some amendments.. It takes what? 3/5 of the states to ratify???

Change? You really don't understand the question, yet are quick with glib answers. In Marbury v. Madison (1803) judicial review was established which helped establish the checks and balances which have long held the union in good service. Judicial Review does not change the Constitution, only amendments have that ability.

Oh so you want the judges to change it to your liking? I got it.
 
I believe the Constitution is a living document, those who argue original intent are full of shit. A careful reading of Article I, section 8 might give pause to the conservatives who have demagouged the issue. In particular those who supported the war powers act, abdicating their constitutional duty on the declaraton of war (in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, as well as smaller invasions of Panama and Grenada) and as to Militias (see clauses 15 & 16) in relation to the second amendment rights they give total support.

Next time you want to do something besides what's in your contract for lease or mortgage on your domicile, you try telling the other party that it's a "living document" and needs to be "interpreted" according to how people think now, not back in the time it was signed. That the terms are too so odd and abstract that they can't be understood by today's people.

The Constitution is a social contract between the people and the government that they chose to establish in state by state (ensuring the federal character of the governmental form) ratifying conventions (and not by vote of state legislatures). It is not any more confusing or less binding than any other contract.

Very poor analogy. A contract for lease or mortgage is specific, time restrained, easily modified and maybe voided for cause by a court. The parties to the contract sign and acknowlege the details as written, any vague or ambiguous terms can and are adjudicated by courts everyday.
 
It has been a living document has it not? If not why all the amendments? You want to change it? Put forth some amendments.. It takes what? 3/5 of the states to ratify???

Change? You really don't understand the question, yet are quick with glib answers. In Marbury v. Madison (1803) judicial review was established which helped establish the checks and balances which have long held the union in good service. Judicial Review does not change the Constitution, only amendments have that ability.

Oh so you want the judges to change it to your liking? I got it.

You 'get' very little WT. My liking has nothing to do with the issue. In 1803, when Marbury was decided the founding fathers were alive; Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning. Yet for over 200 years judicial review has been accepted by the legal community, and the vast majority of officals in the Executive branch and the Congress as well as American citizens not holding radical (and usually self serving) opinions.

btw, by now you have had time to read Article I, section 8; why not offer an argumnent demonstrating how the original intent of the framers was to allow a president to prosecute war without a declaraton from the congress, and how the framers would support any citizen to march around with a gun pretending to be part of a militia?
 
Last edited:
I thought Rep. Goodlatte made his argument very well. If the House has to evaluate the constitutionality of each bill prior to debate, I think the legislation will be better. If nothing else, the debates over the different bills will be more substantive, since everyone has different opinions of what's constitutional and what isn't. O'Donnell made some good points, and certainly highlighted the differences of opinion people hold on different issues.
 
I thought Rep. Goodlatte made his argument very well. If the House has to evaluate the constitutionality of each bill prior to debate, I think the legislation will be better. If nothing else, the debates over the different bills will be more substantive, since everyone has different opinions of what's constitutional and what isn't. O'Donnell made some good points, and certainly highlighted the differences of opinion people hold on different issues.

Goodlatte didn't make a reasoned argument, if the House debates the Constitionality of every bill there are two obvious outcomes: Gridlock and Division.
No where in the Constitution is the power to interpret the Constitution given to the House of Representatives or its members; in Aricle V the Senate and the House are given the authority to set in motion a process to amendment the Constitution, but not to interpret its words.
Marbury is settled law, and the USSC is the only body with the authority (of legal precident) to rule on the Constituionality of an act. Rep. Goodlatte is playing politics and he and the new right, which has taken control of the majority, has adicated the serious duty of the Congress to engage in political theater.

And btw, willow tree has still failed to respond to the original intent of the framers on two specific issues.
 
Last edited:
I believe the Constitution is a living document, those who argue original intent are full of shit. A careful reading of Article I, section 8 might give pause to the conservatives who have demagouged the issue. In particular those who supported the war powers act, abdicating their constitutional duty on the declaraton of war (in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, as well as smaller invasions of Panama and Grenada) and as to Militias (see clauses 15 & 16) in relation to the second amendment rights they give total support.

Next time you want to do something besides what's in your contract for lease or mortgage on your domicile, you try telling the other party that it's a "living document" and needs to be "interpreted" according to how people think now, not back in the time it was signed. That the terms are too so odd and abstract that they can't be understood by today's people.

The Constitution is a social contract between the people and the government that they chose to establish in state by state (ensuring the federal character of the governmental form) ratifying conventions (and not by vote of state legislatures). It is not any more confusing or less binding than any other contract.

and, of course, no contract requires construction, right? it's not like there's actually any litigation on how they're construed. /sarcasm.

what constitutes 'due process'?
what is 'equal protection'?
what constitutes 'interstate commerce'?
what constitutes 'general welfare'?

should i go on?
 
I believe the Constitution is a living document, those who argue original intent are full of shit. A careful reading of Article I, section 8 might give pause to the conservatives who have demagouged the issue. In particular those who supported the war powers act, abdicating their constitutional duty on the declaraton of war (in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, as well as smaller invasions of Panama and Grenada) and as to Militias (see clauses 15 & 16) in relation to the second amendment rights they give total support.

Next time you want to do something besides what's in your contract for lease or mortgage on your domicile, you try telling the other party that it's a "living document" and needs to be "interpreted" according to how people think now, not back in the time it was signed. That the terms are too so odd and abstract that they can't be understood by today's people.

The Constitution is a social contract between the people and the government that they chose to establish in state by state (ensuring the federal character of the governmental form) ratifying conventions (and not by vote of state legislatures). It is not any more confusing or less binding than any other contract.

I think Article V proves this "Contract" as you say, can be modified. So Indeed it is a "Living Document". The wording is vague and needs interpretation.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
 
I thought Rep. Goodlatte made his argument very well. If the House has to evaluate the constitutionality of each bill prior to debate, I think the legislation will be better. If nothing else, the debates over the different bills will be more substantive, since everyone has different opinions of what's constitutional and what isn't. O'Donnell made some good points, and certainly highlighted the differences of opinion people hold on different issues.

Goodlatte didn't make a reasoned argument, if the House debates the Constitionality of every bill there are two obvious outcomes: Gridlock and Division.
No where in the Constitution is the power to interpret the Constitution given to the House of Representatives or its members; in Aricle V the Senate and the House are given the authority to set in motion a process to amendment the Constitution, but not to interpret its words.
Marbury is settled law, and the USSC is the only body with the authority (of legal precident) to rule on the Constituionality of an act. Rep. Goodlatte is playing politics and he and the new right, which has taken control of the majority, has adicated the serious duty of the Congress to engage in political theater.

It's ridiculous to believe that Congress can pass any law it wants to, without regarding the constitutionality of the law beforehand. No one is asking Congress to rule on the constitutionality of legislation, but to take it into consideration when crafting bills. How that can be viewed as a bad thing boggles the mind.


And btw, willow tree has still failed to respond to the original intent of the framers on two specific issues.

Then I suggest you take it up with her. It has nothing to do with me or my post.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top