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

[Little-Acorn]

If Marco Rubio is such a smart man about the Constitution,

He is.

does he understand that the Constitution actually IS a living document?

Not in the way big-govt leftists wish it were - one that can be re-interpreted into unrecognizable shapes any time they'd like to give govt new powers, or take powers from the states.

A better description would be that the Constitution is an enduring document. Its general philosophy that the Fed govt can only have powers that are explicitly listed in it and its amendments, and that 3/4 of the states must approve any changes, makes it the enduring document it is.

The Founding Fathers made sure of that and understood that eventually, as the country changed, the Constitution should be able to be changed, which is why they allowed for it to be amended as required.

Exactly.

And big-govt leftists have had to resort to chicanery, lies, and doubletalk to try to pretend the Constitution gives govt the power to expand enormously as it has. They knew that if 3/4 of the states were asked for approval of everything from Social Security when it was founded, Welfare when it was founded, a host of initial agencies (OSHA, EPA, DOEd, ATF, HHS, DHS etc.), to Obamacare when it was enacted, etc... the leftists knew they all would have rejected out of hand by the states.

So they had to pretend they were tax programs when they clearly weren't, or pretend that they had some vague connection to Interstate Commerce when they didn't, or pretend that the Welfare Clause gave govt sweeping powers when it didn't, etc. etc.

It's clear why big-govt liberals are appalled by the notion that we should interpret the Const in the way that the people who wrote and ratified it did. The people who wrote and ratified it would never dream of allowing such massive govt usurpation, without a long and cumbersome process of approval for explicit amendments. And the Framers knew that the states would reject such thengs out of hand, since Americans by and large don't want big government.

The Constitution is a fundamentally conservative document, limiting a central government to only a few powers and forbidding all others unless the entire country (or 3/4 of it) approves. And in the 200-plus years since it was written, the American people have NEVER wanted to change things into the big-govt nanny state the liberals have been imposing on them through chicanery and fake claims of "legality" (while carefully avoiding the amendment process).

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I can't even begin to describe the stupidity of this statement. So you mean to tell me the Founders decided to pick a fight with the superpower of the day (& one of the strongest in history), go through a bloody 8 year war, struggle another 5 years through the Articles of Confederation was all done to build a document that would only last a generation or two at best? Do you know how absurd this sounds to any rational thinker?

"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
Popular Basis of Political Authority: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison


Care to try again, asshole?

 

[Little-Acorn]

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

The usual balderdash from the usual liberals who are trying to find ways to violate it.

The Constitution doesn't say we must stick to horses and buggies, or that the only viable means of communication is to write letters or talk face to face, or other such things liberals are trying to scare you into believing it says when they claim it's "outdated".

What it does say, is that the Fed govt has only the powers it lists, and that "the states and the people" get all the others if they want to exercise them (but the Fed govt can't). And that if we want to give the Fed more powers, we have to amend the Constitution.

What is "outdated" about that?

It is, in fact, a very good idea, now as it was then.

 

[jillian]

In the debates last night, one of the comments by Marco Rubio is that the Constitution is not a living document, and must be interpreted literally by what the Founding Fathers wrote.

Marco Rubio: Obama Should Not Appoint Supreme Court Justice - Breitbart

The Best Lines of the GOP Debate

If Marco Rubio is such a smart man about the Constitution, does he understand that the Constitution actually IS a living document? The Founding Fathers made sure of that and understood that eventually, as the country changed, the Constitution should be able to be changed, which is why they allowed for it to be amended as required.

And yeah..............in the spirit of fairness, one link is from Breitbart for the conservatives, and from ABC news for everyone else.

did anyone ever say marco is a constitutional scholar?

 

[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.

There was also no internet and no satellite TV, so does that mean we should abolish the First Amendment?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

We have a process to do that...it's called the Amendment process. It's supposed to be hard on purpose. The Founders wanted a document that would stand the test of time but also allow for changes in society. However, they also didn't want it to be so easy to change so that it became meaningless. Given its longevity, it is the standard by which other constitutions & charters are modeled after.

And your view of the 2nd Amendment is precisely why the amendment process was put in place. The first ten are called the Bill of Rights...freedoms which are enumerated. This means they pre-exist & are self evident.

"The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.--I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living": that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it."
Popular Basis of Political Authority: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

 

[jillian]

Rubio stated that the Constitution isn't a living document.

However, based on what the founders wrote, it clearly is.

It can be changed...by vote of the people...not the whim of the justices.

you might want to learn up a little on constitutional construction and our common law system

 

[jillian]

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.

There was also no internet and no satellite TV, so does that mean we should abolish the First Amendment?

quiet.

i love pretend constitutionalists who forget the whole "well-regulated militia' part of the 2nd.

 

[bripat9643]

Rubio stated that the Constitution isn't a living document.

However, based on what the founders wrote, it clearly is.

The reference to "dead" is that the Constitution clearly states it's purpose and intentions and that isn't subject to the whims of the times. If it were, the 2nd Amendment would have been long gone thanks to the gun-grabbers. Amendments were forecast by the Founders to further explain and put boundaries on what the government could do to the people.

if it were 'dead' the 2nd amendment would still be considered a militia right, not an individual right.

It was never considered a "militia right." That term doesn't even make sense. militias don't have rights.

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[Little-Acorn]

"On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. "

Of course. But our Constitution says the States will have most of the power, and the Fed govt is to be limited to only a few powers. And if they want more, a broad collection of 3/4 of the states, in many parts of the country and with many different situations, must agree to give it to them.

Big-govt liberals hate that, because they know there's no way such a broad cross-section of the country would ever agree to giving the liberals such huge powers as they have usurped today.

 

[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.

There was also no internet and no satellite TV, so does that mean we should abolish the First Amendment?

quiet.

i love pretend constitutionalists who forget the whole "well-regulated militia' part of the 2nd.

It has no legal force. Only dingbats like you believe otherwise.

 

[deltex1]

Rubio stated that the Constitution isn't a living document.

However, based on what the founders wrote, it clearly is.

It can be changed...by vote of the people...not the whim of the justices.

you might want to learn up a little on constitutional construction and our common law system

Everything is by the vote of the people, Olga...directly or indirectly. It's called democracy.

 

[bripat9643]

...they didn't want judges just making arbitrary decisions based on current whims.........

Which judges here do not do.

Of course they do. They just did it on the ACA and queer marriage cases.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. "

Of course. But our Constitution says the States will mave most of the power, and the Fed govt is to be limited to only a few powers. And if they want more, a broad collection of 3/4 of the states, in many parts of the country and with many different situations, must agree.

Big-govt liberals hate that, because they know there's no way such a broad cross-section of the country would ever agree to giving the liberals such huge powers as they have usurped today.

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...

 

[jillian]

Rubio stated that the Constitution isn't a living document.

However, based on what the founders wrote, it clearly is.

The reference to "dead" is that the Constitution clearly states it's purpose and intentions and that isn't subject to the whims of the times. If it were, the 2nd Amendment would have been long gone thanks to the gun-grabbers. Amendments were forecast by the Founders to further explain and put boundaries on what the government could do to the people.

if it were 'dead' the 2nd amendment would still be considered a militia right, not an individual right.

It was never considered a "militia right." That term doesn't even make sense. militias don't have rights.

for the uninformed... we had no standing army then. the sole means of defense of our government were militias. they were regulated by the states. the right to bear arms was for defense of the government. that was balanced by the constitution defining treason as the only crime contained in it's pages.

for over 200 years, justices laughed at the idea of a private right of gun ownership. they were all wrong for over 200 years until scalia discovered what was "originally" true?

dumbass.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...they didn't want judges just making arbitrary decisions based on current whims.........

Which judges here do not do.

Of course they do. They just did it on the ACA and queer marriage cases.

Nonsense, utter. The ACA is Medicare. Gay marriage is equality for homosexuals. Both obey the right of men to create a government of their choosing, and protect the rights of men (who love men)...

 

[bripat9643]

if it were 'dead' the 2nd amendment would still be considered a militia right, not an individual right.

The Second Amendment does not say anything about any “right of the militia”. It explicitly identifies the right which if affirms as “…the right of the people…”.

until heller it was not considered an individual right

scalia's activism changed that

You mean libs never considered it to be an individual right. The rest of us did.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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