Living Document or Not?

[JakeStarkey]

And here is bigreb, who got the unholy heck kicked out of him by the right center and the center and the left the last ten days. Whatcha got to offer, doofus?

 

[Londoner]

Thomas Jefferson said it best, “Let no more be heard of trust in men, but bind them down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” And possibly the most powerful of his arguments, “On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Thomas Jefferson


(IMO, the concept of a living document was around, even if it wasn't referred to as such. The framers were very much aware of the dangers posed by both an inflexible, dogmatic originalism, which enslaved future generations to dated values and ideas, and an anything goes tabula rasa, which gave judges the ability to re-write the Constitution at will)

Consider the 14th Amendment which came out of the Reconstruction era. The nation had evolved to a place where it believed blacks should be granted citizenship. I'm guessing the concept of a "living document" is meant to accommodate this natural evolution, i.e., attitudes, beliefs, and even "facts" change (-FYI: that's what living things do, they evolve and change). For example, one era might believe that woman are too irrational for civic function, and thus should not be allowed to vote. But, as Thomas Jefferson states, with "the progress of the human mind", attitudes and beliefs change - and so too must our laws.

The southern Dixiecrats who opposed the 14th Amendment used the concept of Originalism to say that the framers never intended blacks to be counted as full citizens. The Dixiecrats lived in a world where medical texts claimed that blacks were closer to animals than humans. They claimed that Republican northerners were imposing their values on the nation's most sacred text. Same thing with the 19th Amendment, where a minority [of mostly Democrat neanderthals] resisted the change.

Whenever someone disagrees with a change to an existing statute, they spout off about originalism. On the other hand, when they don't like an existing statute, they say the kinds of things Mitch McConnell just said . . . "[the folks who drafted the 14th Amendment did not foresee the problems with anchor babies]"...

Why didn't they foresee . . .

(because the world changes, which is what living things do. They evolve and create different technologies, like airplanes, which allows someone to fly in from Brazil, as Mitch claimed, to have a baby - so they can have instant citizenship with their instant soup. Thank God our Laws are permitted to change with the times. Thank God our primary documents can evolve with us.)

wow, just wow.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Thomas Jefferson said it best, “Let no more be heard of trust in men, but bind them down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” And possibly the most powerful of his arguments, “On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Thomas Jefferson


(IMO, the concept of a living document was around, even if it wasn't referred to as such. The framers were very much aware of the dangers posed by both an inflexible, dogmatic originalism, which enslaved future generations to dated values and ideas, and an anything goes tabula rasa, which gave judges the ability to re-write the Constitution at will)

Consider the 14th Amendment which came out of the Reconstruction era. The nation had evolved to a place where it believed blacks should be granted citizenship. I'm guessing the concept of a "living document" is meant to accommodate this natural evolution - that times, attitudes, and beliefs change (-FYI: that's what living things do, they evolve and change). For example, one era might believe that woman are too irrational for civic function, and thus should not be allowed to vote. But, as Thomas Jefferson states, with "the progress of the human mind", attitudes and beliefs change - and so too must our laws.

The southern Dixiecrats who opposed the 14th Amendment used the concept of Originalism to say that the framers never intended blacks to be counted as full citizens. The Dixiecrats lived in a world where medical texts claimed that blacks were closer to animals than humans. They claimed that Republican northerners were imposing their values on the nation's most sacred text. Same thing with the 19th Amendment, where a minority of people resisted the change.

Whenever someone disagrees with a change to an existing statute, they spout off about originalism. On the other hand, when they don't like an existing statute, they say the kinds of things Mitch McConnell just said . . . "[the folks who drafted the 14th Amendment did not foresee the problems with anchor babies]"...

Why didn't they foresee . . .

(because the world changes, which is what living things do. They evolve and create different technologies, like airplanes, which allows someone to fly in from Brazil, as Mitch claimed, to have a baby - so they can have instant citizenship with their instant soup. Thank God our Laws are permitted to change with the times. Thank God our primary documents can evolve with us.)

wow, just wow.

Yes they can change but there are certain procedures that must be followed. And it doesn't start in the Judiciary branch of the government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb, believe that all you want, but that does not make it so.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm not going to read this entire thread, but the way I see it, our Constitution is living on borrowed time.

Immie

 

[JakeStarkey]

Immanuel, no government and no government charter are immunized against time and events.

 

[Bern80]

Bern80 cannot fashion a discussion on the Constitution and the recent health insurance reform legislation that prevents businesses getting between you and your doctors. He wants to argue constitutional principles out of his ass as if he is an authority. He is only a poseur here for grins and chuckles.

I never understood this particular argumentation. You pretend to be this expert in debate and THIS is the method you go with? Instead of answering my questions you decide to do another one of your "Here is what I THINK of person x" replies, stated in a way as if it is supposed to be taken as fact even though, it is wholly unsustainable (another word you may need to look up). Either you can answer my questions, or you can't. I don't get why you keep dancing instead of answer a simple question:

If the necessary and proper clause is the evidence you want to stick with, then where in the constitution is there authority or domain by the fed that would make requiring people to purchase health insurance necessary and proper?

There are a variety of answers to that you could give.

a) There indeed is an authority or domain there that I am just not seeing.

b)That you feel such a law doesn't need to comport with the constitution in the first place, just established case law.

c) You feel the necessary and proper clause is it's own justification and requires no reference to any other part of the constitution (This would of course require a complete butchering of the english language to see it that way).

d) You can't find any such authority and you still carrying on in the vain attempt that people will actually believe you know what you're talking about.

Pick one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Don't deflect.

You want to argue as if you are an expert on the Constitution.

You are not.

Move along.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Don't deflect.

You want to argue as if you are an expert on the Constitution.

You are not.

Move along.

Enough is enough I have had you on ignore for a few days and watching this thread jakeass. You were asked by Liability this question

Joke:

Other than the unsupported and utterly irrational high value you place in your own uneducated and misinformed opinions on the meaning and purposes of the U.S. Constitution, there must be some genuine and recognized experts whom you consider the most authoritative on matters of valid Constitutional interpretation.

Give it up. Name a few.

So what is your answer. I will add do you have a Constitution law instructor that was your favorite?

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb, you have nothing to demand of anybody. You just aren't important. So who cares what you think?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb, you have nothing to demand of anybody. You just aren't important. So who cares what you think?

In other words you don't know because you are not a student of the Constitution and have never seen the inside of a class that teaches Constitutional law.

Your last chance
Enough is enough I have had you on ignore for a few days and watching this thread jakeass. You were asked by Liability this question

Joke:

Other than the unsupported and utterly irrational high value you place in your own uneducated and misinformed opinions on the meaning and purposes of the U.S. Constitution, there must be some genuine and recognized experts whom you consider the most authoritative on matters of valid Constitutional interpretation.

Give it up. Name a few.

So what is your answer. I will add do you have a Constitution law instructor that was your favorite?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nobody cares what you have had enough of, though I would suggest by the gas you are emitting here that you should lay off the beans. Having a primer class on the constitutionality of arrests and the 4th and 5th Amendments does not mean you know anything significant about constitutional law, American or legal history, or American culture and civilization. Step off, son.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This message is hidden because JakeStarkey is on your ignore list.

 

[Bern80]

Don't deflect.

You want to argue as if you are an expert on the Constitution.

You are not.

Move along.

Stop projecting. When someone asks you to do something or answer something and you come up with excuse after excuse not to, THAT is deflecting. At best you are no better than me and that's being rather kind to you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I asked you earlier to do all of those things, and you kept repeating you knew what you were doing and that I did not. Now you want to reverse matters.

Simply put, you reactionaries, who think you are all Constitutional scholars simply by repeating part of the Constitution, are not interested in open and objective discussion, using reputable sources and scholars. You all want to reach a pre-determined point of bias as if you were staring through a prism at a New Age bauble.

You can begin any discussion you wish, and I will join in where I believe I might add something of worth to the discussion.

I get a kick out of biggie put me on ignore after reading my response. Well, we knew was immature as well as rather slow.

 

[Bern80]

I asked you earlier to do all of those things, and you kept repeating you knew what you were doing and that I did not. Now you want to reverse matters.

Simply put, you reactionaries, who think you are all Constitutional scholars simply by repeating part of the Constitution, are not interested in open and objective discussion, using reputable sources and scholars. You all want to reach a pre-determined point of bias as if you were staring through a prism at a New Age bauble.

You can begin any discussion you wish, and I will join in where I believe I might add something of worth to the discussion.

I get a kick out of biggie put me on ignore after reading my response. Well, we knew was immature as well as rather slow.

I asked things of you as well. You have also refused to do them. Again you are at best no better than me. By my scorecard, we have both pointed to the constitution to back up our statements. Neither of us have pointed to anything outside of the constitution to add credibility to it. I haven't because I don't see that it's necessary. I don't view the constitution as some ancient puzzle to be solved that only the most scholarly of scholars can understand. I can understand english and have a modicum of historical understanding that the framers wanted the citizens to be able to understand their rights and their government.

You don't believe that apparently. You seem to believe that what seems obvious on the face of it is actually very complex. I'm the one here that doesn't believe he needs much more evidence than what is there. You do. So why haven't you provided it to back your claims?

You remain the quintestial hypocrite weasel. YOU are interested in objective debate? There's a joke. Can you explain to me why it is not an objectively logical question to ask where the authority or domain of the fed is that would make requiring people to purchase health insurance necessary and proper?

i

 

[Liability]

bigreb, you have nothing to demand of anybody. You just aren't important. So who cares what you think?

In other words you don't know because you are not a student of the Constitution and have never seen the inside of a class that teaches Constitutional law.

Your last chance
Enough is enough I have had you on ignore for a few days and watching this thread jakeass. You were asked by Liability this question

Joke:

Other than the unsupported and utterly irrational high value you place in your own uneducated and misinformed opinions on the meaning and purposes of the U.S. Constitution, there must be some genuine and recognized experts whom you consider the most authoritative on matters of valid Constitutional interpretation.

Give it up. Name a few.

So what is your answer. I will add do you have a Constitution law instructor that was your favorite?

We all know already that Joke will not answer it.

Pussy lying cowards like Jokey never ever man up. They can't.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb, you have nothing to demand of anybody. You just aren't important. So who cares what you think?

In other words you don't know because you are not a student of the Constitution and have never seen the inside of a class that teaches Constitutional law.

Your last chance
Enough is enough I have had you on ignore for a few days and watching this thread jakeass. You were asked by Liability this question

Joke:

Other than the unsupported and utterly irrational high value you place in your own uneducated and misinformed opinions on the meaning and purposes of the U.S. Constitution, there must be some genuine and recognized experts whom you consider the most authoritative on matters of valid Constitutional interpretation.

Give it up. Name a few.

So what is your answer. I will add do you have a Constitution law instructor that was your favorite?

We all know already that Joke will not answer it.

Pussy lying cowards like Jokey never ever man up. They can't.

I grew tired of jakeass when he kept moving the lines when you reached the lines. He is a joke at best and really isn't very funny. Sorry I could not get him to answer your question. You wrote it very clear and could be understood by anyone that had an IQ higher then the speed limit. on I-85 north bound lane near the Ashboro exist which is 70

OH and my favorite Constitutional law instructor was Mr. Morris He was the legal advisor for the Greensboro PD. He had this thiang for Rubber ducks.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I asked you earlier to do all of those things, and you kept repeating you knew what you were doing and that I did not. Now you want to reverse matters.

Simply put, you reactionaries, who think you are all Constitutional scholars simply by repeating part of the Constitution, are not interested in open and objective discussion, using reputable sources and scholars. You all want to reach a pre-determined point of bias as if you were staring through a prism at a New Age bauble.

You can begin any discussion you wish, and I will join in where I believe I might add something of worth to the discussion.

I get a kick out of biggie put me on ignore after reading my response. Well, we knew was immature as well as rather slow.

I asked things of you as well. You have also refused to do them. Again you are at best no better than me. By my scorecard, we have both pointed to the constitution to back up our statements. Neither of us have pointed to anything outside of the constitution to add credibility to it. I haven't because I don't see that it's necessary. I don't view the constitution as some ancient puzzle to be solved that only the most scholarly of scholars can understand. I can understand english and have a modicum of historical understanding that the framers wanted the citizens to be able to understand their rights and their government.

You don't believe that apparently. You seem to believe that what seems obvious on the face of it is actually very complex. I'm the one here that doesn't believe he needs much more evidence than what is there. You do. So why haven't you provided it to back your claims?

You remain the quintestial hypocrite weasel. YOU are interested in objective debate? There's a joke. Can you explain to me why it is not an objectively logical question to ask where the authority or domain of the fed is that would make requiring people to purchase health insurance necessary and proper?

i

I liked the way you added more to your reply. Nicely written.