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

[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?

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?

 

[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.

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.

The concept of the "right of the militia" is an oxymoron. Government run organizations don't have rights. And justices did not laugh at the idea of private gun ownership. That's just leftwing bullshit gun-grabber propaganda.

The 2nd Amendment says "the right of the people" shall not be infringed. The First Amendment also says "right of the people." The 4th Amendment says "the right of the people." Why does that string of words mean one thing in the 2nd Amendment, and something else in the First and Fourth Amendments? The answer obvious to anyone with a brain is that it doesn't.

 

[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?

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

 

[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.

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)...

Both claims are pure horseshit.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

if you're happy with that activism I'm happy for you

 

[bripat9643]

A mortgage is a static document, written for a certain amount of years for a certain amount of money with no changes, and if you want to get more money, you have to take out another mortgage, you don't amend the current one.

The Constitution is a living document in the sense that it was originally written to never expire, as well as left ways that it could be changed so that it could grow according to the needs of this country. Why did they do that? They knew this country was just getting started and was going to grow to a large nation, as well as couldn't foresee everything that would happen in the next centuries, so that is why they made allowances for it to be changed.

You turds keep making that claim, but you fail to provide any visible means of support.

 

[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)...

Both claims are pure horseshit.

Not according to the Supreme Court rulings, which you never bothered to read of course.

 

[bripat9643]

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

It was written as an individual right in the original words. “…the right of the people…”. There is no honest way to twist that into meaning anything than an individual right belonging to each and every individual free American. Those who try to claim that it means or was ever intended to mean otherwise are engaging in willful dishonesty.

so you are okay with activism so long as it suits your ideology

It is you who is engaging in “activism”, by denying the clear meaning of the words “…the right of the people…” as they are written in the Constitution, in favor of what you wish had been written instead.

the heller decision broke with tradition. that's typically called activism

What "tradition" was that? The Heller decision simply clarified something that the court had never ruled on previously.

 

[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.

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)...

Both claims are pure horseshit.

Not according to the Supreme Court rulings, which you never bothered to read of course.

The whole point of this thread is that Supreme Court rulings are frequently wrong.

 

[jillian]

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.

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.

if you actually read the dissent in that case, instead of the BS the pretend constitutionalists write, you'd know that. even scalia, at his furthest right... said that only a total ban of guns was impermissible but reasonable regulation was ok.

but given you've never read anything but the raging rightwingnut blogosphere, you wouldn't know any of that.

 

[norwegen]

The Holy Bible, with all its versions and applications through the ages, is a living document.

 

[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.

The sure sign of a Constitutional ignoramus is resorting to the "well-regulated militia" excuse for trashing the 2nd Amendment.

 

[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.

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.

if you actually read the dissent in that case, instead of the BS the pretend constitutionalists write, you'd know that. even scalia, at his furthest right... said that only a total ban of guns was impermissible but reasonable regulation was ok.

but given you've never read anything but the raging rightwingnut blogosphere, you wouldn't know any of that.

That's just plain horseshit. Until the 1930s every justice believed in the right of individuals to bear firearms.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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)...

Both claims are pure horseshit.

Not according to the Supreme Court rulings, which you never bothered to read of course.

The whole point of this thread is that Supreme Court rulings are frequently wrong.

And that matters why, even if true? Oh right, it doesn't.

 

[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.

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.

if you actually read the dissent in that case, instead of the BS the pretend constitutionalists write, you'd know that. even scalia, at his furthest right... said that only a total ban of guns was impermissible but reasonable regulation was ok.

but given you've never read anything but the raging rightwingnut blogosphere, you wouldn't know any of that.

Thanks for confirming that you're and idiot. You claim is totally unsubstantiated and absurd. Scalia stated that the kind of weapons protected were those in common use by the military - weapons such as the AR-14

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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?

We should stop calling them “leftists”.

I think it should be plenty obvious, by now, that the political opposite of right is not left; that the political opposite of right is wrong.

We should call them “wrongists”.

 

[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?

We should stop calling them “leftists”.

I think it should be plenty obvious, by now, that the political opposite of right is not left; that the political opposite of right is wrong.

We should call them “wrongists”.

Wrongists are the ones who never learned US History, like those here.

 

[KGB]

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?

See history since 1787 jackass....

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

 

[KGB]

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...