Marco Rubio: The Constitution is not a living document.........

[bripat9643]

What the hell is a "living document"? Do liberals think the Constitution is "living" in that it can change and evolve with the times or is the word "living" just a romantic notion?

"Living document" is leftist tripe that allows them to attempt change the meaning of the constitution based upon moral and cultural relativism.

Cultural and moral relativism like slavery? That only landed white men should be able to vote? That a black man is only 3/5 a human being? That people can be property? If so, then thank God for cultural and moral relativism so that things can change for the better.

There's nothing "relative" about your idiocy. It's as pure as the driven snow.

 

[jillian]

What the hell is a "living document"? Do liberals think the Constitution is "living" in that it can change and evolve with the times or is the word "living" just a romantic notion?

"Living document" is leftist tripe that allows them to attempt change the meaning of the constitution based upon moral and cultural relativism.

Cultural and moral relativism like slavery? That only landed white men should be able to vote? That a black man is only 3/5 a human being? That people can be property? If so, then thank God for cultural and moral relativism so that things can change for the better.

There's nothing "relative" about your idiocy. It's as pure as the driven snow.

 

[bripat9643]

Americans haven't really modernized their Constitution. It was a viable document 230 years ago, but today it is woefully dated.

When the Founders passed the Second Amendment, there were no multi-shot weapons. Drugs were not an issue. The country was wild and dangerous, and protection from attack was essential. Today, you have dangerous weapons on the street, and you cling to your guns for no reasonable purpose other than "it's your Constitutional right". Dumb.

They never expected it to last anything like this long. They would have thought that very, very stupid, and they'd be right.

they did expect it to last this long and intentionally left things to future interpretations and actions.

For once we agree. They created a document which would serve a growing nation. If they wanted something to last 20 years, they would have kept the Articles of Confederation...

Fuck you people are dumb, and they tossed the AOC in the trash can, when they weren't supposed to.

They founded a nation, in which few could vote, not an Empire you little morons. They never expected us not to do what they did, form a government that worked for the times just like they did. Americans, dumb as dog shit.

i think they left enough room in it to grow. no. they never expected an industrial society and they never expected the types of cities we have where so many people are concentrated... which is a good argument for doing away with the electoral college. and an ERA would still be nice. but they gave it a good start. what they never expected was for people to treat it like it was some fundie's bible that couldn't be interpreted appropriately.

Yeah, right, because London and Paris weren't big cities!

Big cities were he reason they invented the electoral college, dingbat.

 

[Borillar]

What the hell is a "living document"? Do liberals think the Constitution is "living" in that it can change and evolve with the times or is the word "living" just a romantic notion?

"Living document" is leftist tripe that allows them to attempt change the meaning of the constitution based upon moral and cultural relativism.

Cultural and moral relativism like slavery? That only landed white men should be able to vote? That a black man is only 3/5 a human being? That people can be property? If so, then thank God for cultural and moral relativism so that things can change for the better.

There's nothing "relative" about your idiocy. It's as pure as the driven snow.

He must be a southerner fan of slavery. There there. The Civil War ended 150 years ago. You can let it go now.

 

[bripat9643]

What the hell is a "living document"? Do liberals think the Constitution is "living" in that it can change and evolve with the times or is the word "living" just a romantic notion?

"Living document" is leftist tripe that allows them to attempt change the meaning of the constitution based upon moral and cultural relativism.

Cultural and moral relativism like slavery? That only landed white men should be able to vote? That a black man is only 3/5 a human being? That people can be property? If so, then thank God for cultural and moral relativism so that things can change for the better.

There's nothing "relative" about your idiocy. It's as pure as the driven snow.

That must be your conception of a comeback.

 

[bripat9643]

no. i meant what i said. no justces believed in a private right of gun ownership. there was no precedent for it until scalia discovered it in Heller.

…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”​

There's the precedent. Straight from the wording of the Second Amendment itself, as ratified in 1791. What it affirms is a right of the people. This means an individual right. Period.

Any ruling which claims that “the people” does not mean the people, is just plain wrong.

ooh... i can use bold too.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

so all of the justices for over two hundred years were wrong and scalia "discovered" out of thin air, the truth?

Which justices were those? Name one court that ruled the right to bear arms was not an individual right.

you can start with justice warren berger, dear


"A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum. "

Read more: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

You said 200 years. When did Warren Burger ascend to the Court?

 

[bripat9643]

What the hell is a "living document"? Do liberals think the Constitution is "living" in that it can change and evolve with the times or is the word "living" just a romantic notion?

"Living document" is leftist tripe that allows them to attempt change the meaning of the constitution based upon moral and cultural relativism.

Cultural and moral relativism like slavery? That only landed white men should be able to vote? That a black man is only 3/5 a human being? That people can be property? If so, then thank God for cultural and moral relativism so that things can change for the better.

There's nothing "relative" about your idiocy. It's as pure as the driven snow.

He must be a southerner fan of slavery. There there. The Civil War ended 150 years ago. You can let it go now.

We'll never let it go, asshole. We'll stuff it down your throat and make you choke on it.

 

[bripat9643]

they did expect it to last this long and intentionally left things to future interpretations and actions.

For once we agree. They created a document which would serve a growing nation. If they wanted something to last 20 years, they would have kept the Articles of Confederation...

Fuck you people are dumb, and they tossed the AOC in the trash can, when they weren't supposed to.

They founded a nation, in which few could vote, not an Empire you little morons. They never expected us not to do what they did, form a government that worked for the times. Americans, dumb as dog shit who know nothing of their history.

The only moronic thing here is your incomprehensible ramblings regarding the Founders intent. The 86ing of the AoC demonstrated their intent. They wanted a Constitution that would survive the test of time. Something that could be altered if necessary as well. What kind of state could you have if you are changing up your basic law every generation? That makes little sense. They just fought & won a war against the big kid on the block. It's not that hard.

The Constitution has not stood the test of time, unfortunately. Poised precariously between liberty and union, it has proved unable to repel the forces of prerogative and majority tyranny. The United States has shifted radically to the left of the instrument.

how has it failed to ward off majority tyranny? i'm not saying it always does. sometimes the court is wrong. but certainly they've done a very good job with the right of privacy line of cases and aubergefeld type cases. less so with hobby lobby and citizens united. but i don't think anyone expects perfection.

Our current government is the very definition of tyranny.

 

[OKTexas]

no. i meant what i said. no justces believed in a private right of gun ownership. there was no precedent for it until scalia discovered it in Heller.

…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”​

There's the precedent. Straight from the wording of the Second Amendment itself, as ratified in 1791. What it affirms is a right of the people. This means an individual right. Period.

Any ruling which claims that “the people” does not mean the people, is just plain wrong.

ooh... i can use bold too.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

so all of the justices for over two hundred years were wrong and scalia "discovered" out of thin air, the truth?

Which justices were those? Name one court that ruled the right to bear arms was not an individual right.

you can start with justice warren berger, dear


"A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum. "

Read more: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

The right to a gun, is hardly unfettered in today's times, there are all kinds of restrictions placed on gun ownership and the purchase of a gun.

 

[Borillar]

For once we agree. They created a document which would serve a growing nation. If they wanted something to last 20 years, they would have kept the Articles of Confederation...

Fuck you people are dumb, and they tossed the AOC in the trash can, when they weren't supposed to.

They founded a nation, in which few could vote, not an Empire you little morons. They never expected us not to do what they did, form a government that worked for the times. Americans, dumb as dog shit who know nothing of their history.

The only moronic thing here is your incomprehensible ramblings regarding the Founders intent. The 86ing of the AoC demonstrated their intent. They wanted a Constitution that would survive the test of time. Something that could be altered if necessary as well. What kind of state could you have if you are changing up your basic law every generation? That makes little sense. They just fought & won a war against the big kid on the block. It's not that hard.

The Constitution has not stood the test of time, unfortunately. Poised precariously between liberty and union, it has proved unable to repel the forces of prerogative and majority tyranny. The United States has shifted radically to the left of the instrument.

how has it failed to ward off majority tyranny? i'm not saying it always does. sometimes the court is wrong. but certainly they've done a very good job with the right of privacy line of cases and aubergefeld type cases. less so with hobby lobby and citizens united. but i don't think anyone expects perfection.

Our current government is the very definition of tyranny.

Yeah. Slavery is A-OK, but affordable healthcare is tyranny.

 

[Si modo]

Our current government is the very definition of tyranny.

Yeah. Slavery is A-OK, but affordable healthcare is tyranny.

Tyranny: cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.


Yup...that works.

 

[jillian]

For once we agree. They created a document which would serve a growing nation. If they wanted something to last 20 years, they would have kept the Articles of Confederation...

Fuck you people are dumb, and they tossed the AOC in the trash can, when they weren't supposed to.

They founded a nation, in which few could vote, not an Empire you little morons. They never expected us not to do what they did, form a government that worked for the times. Americans, dumb as dog shit who know nothing of their history.

The only moronic thing here is your incomprehensible ramblings regarding the Founders intent. The 86ing of the AoC demonstrated their intent. They wanted a Constitution that would survive the test of time. Something that could be altered if necessary as well. What kind of state could you have if you are changing up your basic law every generation? That makes little sense. They just fought & won a war against the big kid on the block. It's not that hard.

The Constitution has not stood the test of time, unfortunately. Poised precariously between liberty and union, it has proved unable to repel the forces of prerogative and majority tyranny. The United States has shifted radically to the left of the instrument.

how has it failed to ward off majority tyranny? i'm not saying it always does. sometimes the court is wrong. but certainly they've done a very good job with the right of privacy line of cases and aubergefeld type cases. less so with hobby lobby and citizens united. but i don't think anyone expects perfection.

Our current government is the very definition of tyranny.

only to treasonous rightwingnut net-confederate insurrectionists.

you lost the war. get over it.

 

[Borillar]

Our current government is the very definition of tyranny.

Yeah. Slavery is A-OK, but affordable healthcare is tyranny.

Tyranny: cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.


Yup...that works.

Wow, so what else is "tyranny" in your world? Stop signs? Speed limits? Gravity?

 

[dblack]

Our current government is the very definition of tyranny.

Yeah. Slavery is A-OK, but affordable healthcare is tyranny.

Tyranny: cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.


Yup...that works.

Wow, so what else is "tyranny" in your world? Stop signs? Speed limits? Gravity?

Tyranny is a loaded term (implies a "tyrant"). It might be better talk about how government should be used. In particular, when should the majority be allowed to force the minority to bend to its will?

That's really what the Constitution was supposed to layout. Its authors were trying to convince a bunch of rebels to give some of their hard earned independence back to a central government. And those rebels were only willing to concede with the stipulation that the new government's powers would be clearly defined and constrained. They deliberately created an amendment process that made it difficult to change those limits without widespread consensus of the people. They didn't want to give government itself (not the President, not Congress, not the Courts) the have the power to redefine Constitutional limits.

That's what opposition to "living document" theory is based on. Obviously, the Constitution must be interpreted, and interpretations will have to be flexible enough to account for unexpected circumstances (eg are emails "speech"?). But many "living document" proponents want to take it as step further, and simply use the power of the Court to do an end run around the actual amendment process because they can't be bothered to affirm the required consensus. Or simply want to push through changes that don't have that consensus.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The founding fathers did not intend for the Constitution to be changed by executive orders and reckless court rulings that plainly contradict the original intent of the document. The only mechanism the framers provided to change the Constitution was the amendment process, which they purposely made difficult.

 

[bripat9643]

Fuck you people are dumb, and they tossed the AOC in the trash can, when they weren't supposed to.

They founded a nation, in which few could vote, not an Empire you little morons. They never expected us not to do what they did, form a government that worked for the times. Americans, dumb as dog shit who know nothing of their history.

The only moronic thing here is your incomprehensible ramblings regarding the Founders intent. The 86ing of the AoC demonstrated their intent. They wanted a Constitution that would survive the test of time. Something that could be altered if necessary as well. What kind of state could you have if you are changing up your basic law every generation? That makes little sense. They just fought & won a war against the big kid on the block. It's not that hard.

The Constitution has not stood the test of time, unfortunately. Poised precariously between liberty and union, it has proved unable to repel the forces of prerogative and majority tyranny. The United States has shifted radically to the left of the instrument.

how has it failed to ward off majority tyranny? i'm not saying it always does. sometimes the court is wrong. but certainly they've done a very good job with the right of privacy line of cases and aubergefeld type cases. less so with hobby lobby and citizens united. but i don't think anyone expects perfection.

Our current government is the very definition of tyranny.

Yeah. Slavery is A-OK, but affordable healthcare is tyranny.

Where did I say slavery was OK, eh asshole?

Did the Yankees have healthcare? No. Did they have slaves? Yes. I guess that must be what you support.

 

[bripat9643]

Fuck you people are dumb, and they tossed the AOC in the trash can, when they weren't supposed to.

They founded a nation, in which few could vote, not an Empire you little morons. They never expected us not to do what they did, form a government that worked for the times. Americans, dumb as dog shit who know nothing of their history.

The only moronic thing here is your incomprehensible ramblings regarding the Founders intent. The 86ing of the AoC demonstrated their intent. They wanted a Constitution that would survive the test of time. Something that could be altered if necessary as well. What kind of state could you have if you are changing up your basic law every generation? That makes little sense. They just fought & won a war against the big kid on the block. It's not that hard.

The Constitution has not stood the test of time, unfortunately. Poised precariously between liberty and union, it has proved unable to repel the forces of prerogative and majority tyranny. The United States has shifted radically to the left of the instrument.

how has it failed to ward off majority tyranny? i'm not saying it always does. sometimes the court is wrong. but certainly they've done a very good job with the right of privacy line of cases and aubergefeld type cases. less so with hobby lobby and citizens united. but i don't think anyone expects perfection.

Our current government is the very definition of tyranny.

only to treasonous rightwingnut net-confederate insurrectionists.

you lost the war. get over it.

I wasn't in the war, dingbat.

All Americans lost when Lincoln established the principle that the federal government could invade a state and slaughter its citizens by the thousands. Hard to believe anyone believes that was a good thing.

 

[2aguy]

They never expected it to last anything like this long.

See how blithely the leftists come up with lies when they can't win with the truth?

"On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only." - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

Yeah.....and where is that actually in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence.....a private letter from one guy to another is not law....

 

[2aguy]

They never expected it to last anything like this long.

See how blithely the leftists come up with lies when they can't win with the truth?

The government of today was not created just for the hell of it, and the Founders never wanted the pitchforks to have a say in government. They founded a Democratic Republic, not a democracy. That was on purpose...

And strawman "arguments", where they pretend to "refute" arguments no one has made?

“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

And that is why they put the Amendment process into the Constitution twit.........try to keep up.

 

[2aguy]

no. i meant what i said. no justces believed in a private right of gun ownership. there was no precedent for it until scalia discovered it in Heller.

…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”​

There's the precedent. Straight from the wording of the Second Amendment itself, as ratified in 1791. What it affirms is a right of the people. This means an individual right. Period.

Any ruling which claims that “the people” does not mean the people, is just plain wrong.

ooh... i can use bold too.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

so all of the justices for over two hundred years were wrong and scalia "discovered" out of thin air, the truth?

Yeah....I noticed you forgot to post the actual relevant part...."The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Funny how you anti freedom types always leave that part off....