Let's Start The National Debate

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Zhukov, Oct 27, 2005.

  1. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    Now that Miers is out of the picture, maybe we can now have a long overdue national debate. So why not start it here?


    I believe the Constitution should be applied precisely in the manner intended by those who wrote it, and understood in precisely the manner of those who ratified it.

    I do not believe the Constitution should be read through a prism of contemporary attitudes.

    I do not believe the Constitution is a ‘living document’.

    I believe that if one does believe these last two points, then that individual believes they are so much wiser (or perhaps just more important) than the Founder’s that they can therefore bypass, by judicial fiat, the amendment process the Founder’s wrote into the Constitution (a.k.a. judicial activism).

    So. Who disagrees? And why?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Hmmm, I agree with the concept of using the 'intent' of the Framers, however the powers of the constitution are lacking in specifics for the very reason that they 'expected' that times, technology, etc would change. It has to be flexible enough to do so, otherwise you are in the position of the EU/US state constitutions with too many specifics and the need to throw them out and start over again and again.

    With the Federalist and Anti-federalists papers, private correspondences, Madison's notes, etc., we have a pretty good idea of what many of the Framers intended. Those should be used, not 'international rulings'. :rolleyes:

    The amendment process is purposely difficult to prevent too much change too quickly, that is a good thing.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    I DO tend to agree w/ Zhukov

    I DO Believe the children are the future. Teach them well and let them lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess inside.
     
  4. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    i agree.....the intent of the document is paramount in applying it to current issues......
     
  5. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +620
    Hey, I know a Magistrate Judge! Well hell, at least she's a Judge already, and doesn't know W. ;)
    Oh, and she's far from liberal too.
     
  6. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    The only real flexibility I see in it is the aptly named elastic clause. But other than that it is pretty clear in my opinion. Besides that clause, I believe there is no 'flexibility' outside the ammendment process and I'd add that even the 'elastic' clause ought to be interpreted much more conservatively.

    Me too!.
     
  7. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    I view the Constitution the way Kathianne does. In my opinion, its flexibility is the amendment process, which was purposely made difficult by the Founding Fathers.
     
  8. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    So no libs out there want to tell me the Supreme Court should 'protect the little guy'? Not one of you want to tell me how Justices should rule on fairness and what is right? Shame.
     
  9. The ClayTaurus
    Offline

    The ClayTaurus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    7,062
    Thanks Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +333
    Stop trolling.
     
  10. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511

    Hey, fudge you man. Nobody talks to z that way, especially you, asscanker. Defend your lib point of view or shut up.
     

Share This Page