Living Document or Not?

[Liability]

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.

Frauds like you always rely on strawmen. There was no discussion, debate or inference suggesting that I ever thought anybody was out to get me. So, really. You stand exposed as dishonest from jump street, shithole. Try to man up you quiff and give honesty a chance. M'kay? Fucking douche.

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?

The Constitution, you bombastic and dishonest ass-licker is not subject to your stupid whim. Get that retarded liberal orthodoxy the fuck out of your useless petty little mind.

What the Federal Government is permitted to do is already spelled out. If you don't like it, that's just too fucking bad. You and your fellow Statist asshole-buddies have every right to try to change it. But you are obligated to do so in the way set forth in the Constitution.

And therein lies the answer to each of your retarded and utterly meaningless fraudulent "questions."

 

[Greenbeard]

Frauds like you always rely on strawmen. There was no discussion, debate or inference suggesting that I ever thought anybody was out to get me.

I don't know how else to interpret your militancy. There certainly seems to be a strong strand of paranoia running through you.

What the Federal Government is permitted to do is already spelled out. If you don't like it, that's just too fucking bad. You and your fellow Statist asshole-buddies have every right to try to change it. But you are obligated to do so in the way set forth in the Constitution.

Does that mean no Air Force, no NASA, no interstate highways? I can't tell what you believe (beyond opaque slogans) and it's not clear to me that you know. Was Clay's American System unconstitutional? Was Lincoln's Freedman's Bureau unconstitutional? For that matter, was the Homestead Act of 1862 unconstitutional? Were Washington and Madison out of line to charter national banks?

If you've got points and arguments to make, please make them. If all you have is another string of profanity, you can just send that in a PM or something. I'll get to it later.

 

[Oddball]

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?

That has to absolutely be the biggest string of non sequiturs I've ever seen...Leave it to the arrogance of the modern librul fifth columnist to assume that mere difference in time makes him wiser and smarter than the men who set forth the national structure, that transformed a fledgling nation into an global economic and liberty powerhouse inside of a century.

You also like to play twenty questions, I see. What do you think the game of baseball would look like with your idiotic and subversive "living rules"?...Gee, I'm a slow white boy who can only hit a fastball and that's soooo unfair...We should pass a law that makes it mandatory for pitchers to throw me no breaking balls, and I should only have to run 60-foot base paths.

How about the simple game of poker?...Three of a kind beats two pair, unless I can prove that I'm some aggrieved minority group, then I win!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liability, based on his writings here, has no real understanding of American history, the constitution, or our legal system. All of his questions have been answered. He, no more than bigreb, gets to tell us how the Constitution must be interpreted. He can have his opinion, sure, but the decision making is over.

He will just have to get along with that.

And Dude just nattered on saying absolutely nothing of sense or worth. But that's what makes America great, that even nasty folks like Liability or bigrebnc1775 and "I am lost in the woods, help find me" folks like Dude can have their say. And what makes it great also is that those of us who do understand what America is about can chuckle and pat Dude and the others on their collective pointy head on the way past them.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

A fledgling nation such as America was in the days of Jefferson the federal government had to take the lead with the OK of the separate state governments to build an interstate means of transportation. But for the most part it is and has always been a states issue as to building higways.

We are not susposed to have a military it is suppose to be disbanded only used in the case of a threat of invasion

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb, we are not living in the 19th century. If we lived by your interpretation of the Constitution, we would all be speaking Russian.

 

[Jack Fate]

I notice it always seems to be a lefty who wants to call the US Constitution a "living" document. If the lefty is so sure of his position then I suggest use the method provided in the very Constitution you claim to love. Amendments.

 

[Oddball]

"Living rules" = No rules.

Contrary to the familiar lame charge from the left about libertarians, it's the Fabian socialist progressives who are the true anarchists.

 

[jillian]

bigreb, we are not living in the 19th century. If we lived by your interpretation of the Constitution, we would all be speaking Russian.

i think some people forget that we live in a common law nation, NOT a code state. The constitution is subject to interpretation. That interpretation is subject to change....

hence plessy v ferguson ends up being reversed by brown v bd of ed.

and there are always questions about how one is to APPLY a particular clause.

people need to understand that scholars have disagreed for 200 years and they aren't going to suddenly pretend that they have THE answer.

it;s silly.

 

[Yurt]

bigreb, we are not living in the 19th century. If we lived by your interpretation of the Constitution, we would all be speaking Russian.

i think some people forget that we live in a common law nation, NOT a code state. The constitution is subject to interpretation. That interpretation is subject to change....

hence plessy v ferguson ends up being reversed by brown v bd of ed.

and there are always questions about how one is to APPLY a particular clause.

people need to understand that scholars have disagreed for 200 years and they aren't going to suddenly pretend that they have THE answer.

it;s silly.

good points, and i agree, people will continue disagreeing, at least in this country that is allowed

 

[Oddball]

bigreb, we are not living in the 19th century. If we lived by your interpretation of the Constitution, we would all be speaking Russian.

i think some people forget that we live in a common law nation, NOT a code state.

Pure rubbish.

We're supposed to be a common law state, but we're living under statutory Admiralty Maritime law....You can even look it up in Black's.

 

[Yurt]

"Living rules" = No rules.

Contrary to the familiar lame charge from the left about libertarians, it's the Fabian socialist progressives who are the true anarchists.

so laws should never change?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb, we are not living in the 19th century. If we lived by your interpretation of the Constitution, we would all be speaking Russian.

By all means procede with some sort of non opinionated proof to our claim.

 

[Oddball]

"Living rules" = No rules.

Contrary to the familiar lame charge from the left about libertarians, it's the Fabian socialist progressives who are the true anarchists.

so laws should never change?

The laws should be few and limited to redressing aggression.

If there are laws that need to change (i.e. be scrapped altogether) it's those which elevate gubmint to the role of aggressor, under numerous specious rubrics like "social justice" or "it's for your own good".

 

[Greenbeard]

I notice it always seems to be a lefty who wants to call the US Constitution a "living" document. If the lefty is so sure of his position then I suggest use the method provided in the very Constitution you claim to love. Amendments.

That's not quite true. Even those who would argue that it's a dead document often tend to find powers in there that aren't technically written in there. For example, the immigration-related bit of Article I, Section 8 says that Congress has the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Spinning that into an authority to build border walls and have a Border Patrol and forcibly deport un-naturalized folks who happen to be in the country requires a bit of interpretation and the aid of a few Supreme Court precedents.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"Living rules" = No rules.

Contrary to the familiar lame charge from the left about libertarians, it's the Fabian socialist progressives who are the true anarchists.

so laws should never change?

We have certain Constitutional mandated laws that we must follow with any changes attempted on the Constitution.

If those steps are not followed I don't care who is in office or in power we are not obligated to comply.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb, we are not living in the 19th century. If we lived by your interpretation of the Constitution, we would all be speaking Russian.

By all means procede with some sort of non opinionated proof to our claim.

You made the claim, son, and have not supported it. I have to prove nothing at this point. The fact is that SCOTUS has ruled, and, you, kiddo, get to support it. Lucky you!

Oh, and go ahead and don't comply with a law you don't like. Tell us how that turns out.

 

[jillian]

bigreb, we are not living in the 19th century. If we lived by your interpretation of the Constitution, we would all be speaking Russian.

i think some people forget that we live in a common law nation, NOT a code state. The constitution is subject to interpretation. That interpretation is subject to change....

hence plessy v ferguson ends up being reversed by brown v bd of ed.

and there are always questions about how one is to APPLY a particular clause.

people need to understand that scholars have disagreed for 200 years and they aren't going to suddenly pretend that they have THE answer.

it;s silly.

good points, and i agree, people will continue disagreeing, at least in this country that is allowed

thank you. but what would you say to people who think there is only one answer.... one way to respond constitutionally? don't the pretend constitutionalists offend your sensibilities given you've studied... i've studied... i'd hate to think either of us would pretend to know all... though of course we have opinions on different subjects. but some of these people, who've never studied .... ever... get offended when one suggests that perhaps they should study before they offer such definitive views.

 

[Jack Fate]

I notice it always seems to be a lefty who wants to call the US Constitution a "living" document. If the lefty is so sure of his position then I suggest use the method provided in the very Constitution you claim to love. Amendments.

That's not quite true. Even those who would argue that it's a dead document often tend to find powers in there that aren't technically written in there. For example, the immigration-related bit of Article I, Section 8 says that Congress has the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Spinning that into an authority to build border walls and have a Border Patrol and forcibly deport un-naturalized folks who happen to be in the country requires a bit of interpretation and the aid of a few Supreme Court precedents.

I sure don't think it's a "dead" document. It is what it is. You either follow it or you don't. If you want to change what something says or add to it then there is the amendment process. That's why Obama has placed two morons on the USSC. They are going to tell us what it says in their eyes, not what it really says. They are gonig to do some social construction and then claim it's in the constitution. That's bullshit. Obama hates the US Constitution.

Your explanation of Article 1, Section 8 is really amazing. How would you keep illegals out?

 

[ConHog]

The COTUS IS a living document in that it has the capability of being expanded, and to a lesser extent interpreted. Of course there will always be disagreement in the interpretation of the COTUS by the SCOTUS , but even that was be design. No one ever intended the COTUS to be a document that everyone agreed on every aspect of, hell that isn't even possible. This is obvious by the fact that a 3/4 majority is needed to augment it, not a unanimous vote. Of course it is also obvious that through time some judges have and always will overstep their bounds when interpreting the COTUS, but that is the nature of and infallible and I don't think anyone truly wants a document that leaves no room for any interpretation.

A couple points

1. Article 1 section 8 clearly gives Congress the authority to create and maintain both an Army and a Navy. it does not call for either to be called up only upon an invasion. That doesn't even make sense, no training time? No defensive military? Etc etc. The only time limit even mentioned is a two year limit on appropriations, a limit which is observed.

Now, one could argue that the Air Force may have became unconstitutional in 1947 when it became a separate entity from the Army. And in fact I would use this as my reason for shutting down the Air Force.

2. Highways. A postal road was at the time defined as ANY road in which the mail could be delivered. This could be used to justify any road, and in fact was used as justification for railroads in the 1850s. If a railroad can legally be defined as a postal road, I see no reason why a interstate hwy also couldn't be.