Living Document or Not?

[Truthmatters]

You are wrong and the SCOTUS is not your slave.

This is a democracy and you were out voted.

You are talking anti American bullshit and spewing hate on our constitution for your failed political ideas

So when the democrats are in power it's a Democracy but when the Republicans are in power it's a RepublicA republic is a democracy. Dare I say you are the one talking anti American and your Saul Alinsky propagandist BULLSHIT doesn't work on me. do you understand this?Do you understand you are talking out against the constitution of the US?
So explain something to me, Who is the employer and who is the servant? SCOTUS or the PEOPLE? If one branch over steps it authority do we still have a checks and balances in our form of government?The SCOTUS's whole reason for exsisting is to make sure the laws we make comport with the constitution, they did not overstep their bounds

You just hate the government of the US.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

that is merely your opinion, bigreb, shared by 47 people, and, frankly, my dear, i don't gave a damn. Nor does anybody else, really.

Добрае слова таварыш

WOW noew that was deep. great reply Frank as usual.

 

[Truthmatters]

Quit spewing hate for the government of the US

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are wrong and the SCOTUS is not your slave.

This is a democracy and you were out voted.

You are talking anti American bullshit and spewing hate on our constitution for your failed political ideas

So when the democrats are in power it's a Democracy but when the Republicans are in power it's a RepublicA republic is a democracy. Dare I say you are the one talking anti American and your Saul Alinsky propagandist BULLSHIT doesn't work on me. do you understand this?Do you understand you are talking out against the constitution of the US?
So explain something to me, Who is the employer and who is the servant? SCOTUS or the PEOPLE? If one branch over steps it authority do we still have a checks and balances in our form of government?The SCOTUS's whole reason for exsisting is to make sure the laws we make comport with the constitution, they did not overstep their bounds

You just hate the government of the US.

Did you vote for the CHANGE? I liked the form of Government we once had at least before Bush 1. If someone wishes to change something that means that hate somnething about the thing they wish to change.

So using your logic you supported the change and you hate Americas form of government that use to be a Rupblic. Thats ok you will be more then supportive of a Repbulic when the Republicans are in control in 2010 and 2012. Maybe by that time I will have changed my mind and be more supportive of a democracy Republicans running a democracy sounds great to me.

Anyway no answer from my question?

Who is the employer and who is the servant? SCOTUS or the PEOPLE?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Quit spewing hate for the government of the US

Saul Alinsky alert

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Not.

 

[Truthmatters]

The way the constitution stands today is a result of the power the founders gave the people.

You people claim it is wrong.

You then are spitting on the system our founders gave us.

You are the people who are hating on our current government because your side didnt win the votes to pack the court with your fellow failed idea holders.

You are spewing hate on our constitution.

IT IS NOT YOURS, its OURS together.

Our side won this democratic debate.

Stop hating on this country.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The way the constitution stands today is a result of the power the founders gave the people.

You people claim it is wrong.

You then are spitting on the system our founders gave us.

You are the people who are hating on our current government because your side didnt win the votes to pack the court with your fellow failed idea holders.

You are spewing hate on our constitution.

IT IS NOT YOURS, its OURS together.

Our side won this democratic debate.

Stop hating on this country.

Show us what was mention in hate against the Constitution?
Where are the checks and Balances?
SCOTUS does not have the authority to do what you push as Constitutional.
That's why we have three branches of Government to have a systemn of checks and Balances. nether branch is the sole authority and last say on the Constitution, however the PEOPLE are.

 

[Liability]

Living things can change easily.

The Constitution is designed not to.

Statists love to claim that the Constitution is a "living" document.

It isn't. It was never intended to be.

Those who claim it is are either liars or ignorant.

 

[Liability]

Quit spewing hate for the government of the US

It is you and your fellow treacherous lie-berals who hate America itself.

Our government is supposed to adhere to the ground rules. When they don't, it's perfectly okay to hate them.

Your asshole and dishonest advice on the topic is valueless, you lying shithead.

 

[Douger]

It died back in 2001.
You forgot ?
Al CIA duh demo'd 3 high rises and tore that " goddamn' piece of paper up.

 

[Greenbeard]

Living things can change easily.

The Constitution is designed not to.

Statists love to claim that the Constitution is a "living" document.

It isn't. It was never intended to be.

Those who claim it is are either liars or ignorant.

Is it your contention that the Constitution is equipped only to govern a late 18th century agrarian society and that no interpretation to apply its basic structure to a post-industrial society is possible?

That seems to be the sentiment behind this thread and frankly I'm not sure how that can be construed as a defense of the Constitution. Rather, it sounds like a statement that it's a useless document in an age of space travel, telecommunications and internet-based commerce, multi-national corporations and globalization, etc. I like to think it can still be used to govern a society that has undergone substantial economic and social changes since 1787. It sounds like you think it can't be used to govern a modern nation because in your mind interpretations of its provisions are forbidden from evolving with the nation itself.

So I would ask: if this document can only be used to govern 18th century America, what use do you see for in the 21st century? Should we not have a new Constitutional convention if this one is rooted in a social and economic order that no longer exists?

 

[Charles_Main]

Yes it is a living document in the sense that it can be amended. The problem is to many times it's meaning is changed through Federal ignoring of it, or Judicial activism, instead of the mechanism designed to change it. An Amendment.

 

[The Infidel]

Constitution in Exile

well well well,

turning back the clock is no way to move forward

Yes we know you do not care for the truth you lying hack. You are fine with destroying the Constitution, well except when Republicans are in charge, then you whine like a baby stuck with a safety pin.

How cute , bullshit laced with personal insults.

Heres the deal you asshole, the founders left us the constitution, Not just you right wing hacks but the entire country full of people.

They left us a document that was designed to grow with the people of the future.

It is OUR document not theirs. They intended it that way.

under them most Americans could not even vote.

Then why dont you libs listen to "The People"


And just for the record.... No, its not a living breathing document.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Living things can change easily.

The Constitution is designed not to.

Statists love to claim that the Constitution is a "living" document.

It isn't. It was never intended to be.

Those who claim it is are either liars or ignorant.

Is it your contention that the Constitution is equipped only to govern a late 18th century agrarian society and that no interpretation to apply its basic structure to a post-industrial society is possible?

That seems to be the sentiment behind this thread and frankly I'm not sure how that can be construed as a defense of the Constitution. Rather, it sounds like a statement that it's a useless document in an age of space travel, telecommunications and internet-based commerce, multi-national corporations and globalization, etc. I like to think it can still be used to govern a society that has undergone substantial economic and social changes since 1787. It sounds like you think it can't be used to govern a modern nation because in your mind interpretations of its provisions are forbidden from evolving with the nation itself.

So I would ask: if this document can only be used to govern 18th century America, what use do you see for in the 21st century? Should we not have a new Constitutional convention if this one is rooted in a social and economic order that no longer exists?

You want change how about a change of residence? I am sure there are a few country's that would fill your need for change. While you're moving take the trash in the white house with you.

 

[Greenbeard]

You want change how a change of residence? I am sure there are a few country's that would feel your need for change. While you're movinbg take the trash in the white house with you.

An invaluable contribution, as always. Thanks.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You want change how a change of residence? I am sure there are a few country's that would feel your need for change. While you're movinbg take the trash in the white house with you.

An invaluable contribution, as always. Thanks.

You are the one wanting CHANGE.

 

[Liability]

It died back in 2001.
You forgot ?
Al CIA duh demo'd 3 high rises and tore that " goddamn' piece of paper up.

Your psychotic lie-beral crapaganda is simply stupid.

You're off your meds. Seek professional help, nitwit.

 

[Liability]

Living things can change easily.

The Constitution is designed not to.

Statists love to claim that the Constitution is a "living" document.

It isn't. It was never intended to be.

Those who claim it is are either liars or ignorant.

Is it your contention that the Constitution is equipped only to govern a late 18th century agrarian society and that no interpretation to apply its basic structure to a post-industrial society is possible?

That seems to be the sentiment behind this thread and frankly I'm not sure how that can be construed as a defense of the Constitution. Rather, it sounds like a statement that it's a useless document in an age of space travel, telecommunications and internet-based commerce, multi-national corporations and globalization, etc. I like to think it can still be used to govern a society that has undergone substantial economic and social changes since 1787. It sounds like you think it can't be used to govern a modern nation because in your mind interpretations of its provisions are forbidden from evolving with the nation itself.

So I would ask: if this document can only be used to govern 18th century America, what use do you see for in the 21st century? Should we not have a new Constitutional convention if this one is rooted in a social and economic order that no longer exists?

No, you dick. It is my contention that the limits imposed on the federal government are real, actual and mandatory. They are not subject to your feeble-minded whim.

This offends shitstains like you.

I'm ok with that.

In the meanwhile, jerk, learn to live within the confines and boundaries carefully delineated in the Constitution.

Your pathetic rhetoric about agrarian societies is beyond useless. It is utterly irrelevant.

 

[Greenbeard]

No, you dick. It is my contention that the limits imposed on the federal government are real, actual and mandatory. They are not subject to your feeble-minded whim.

Calm down there, fella. The world isn't out to get you.

Now, how do we map out the limits? Can the federal government invest in infrastructure? You can trace this back to Jefferson signing off on the National Road, investments in an internal canal system, up through Eisenhower and the interstate highways, through the stimulus package last year. Can the federal government do that? Technically the only mentions of roads in the Constitution is the power "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads," but it would be tough to classify something like I-95 as a "post road."

Does the federal government have the power to establish an agency like NASA? Can we have an Air Force when the Constitution only explicitly authorizes Congress to "raise and support Armies," to "provide and maintain a Navy," and to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces"? For that matter, can we have the other uniformed services like the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps?

Can money be spent on "defense" activities apart from raising armies and declaring war? What do we classify as interstate commerce and has the nature of those transactions changed at all in the past 220 years? Can the feds regulate an insurance market? Are tax deductions and credits acceptable under the Sixteenth amendment?

And, perhaps most importantly, does the Constitution allow for our understanding of any of these things to change with time?