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

[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?

See history since 1787 jackass....

I know the history, I also know what the Founders thought, like the above, shit for brains. Learn some real history, not right-wing propaganda.

 

[jillian]

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?

 

[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.

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...

agreed.

 

[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.

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. Americans, dumb as dog shit who know nothing of their history.

 

[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....

I know the history, I also know what the Founders thought, like the above, shit for brains. Learn some real history, not right-wing propaganda.

Again, if they just wanted a temporary document, they would have just kept the Articles of Confederation. But instead, they ripped it up & started over. Their actions described their intent. Are you truly this thick?

 

[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.

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.

 

[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...

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.

 

[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.

 

[KGB]

Furthermore, Ben Franklin said at the close of the Constitutional Convention...

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Not A Republic you can keep for 20 years...

1593. Benjamin Franklin (1706-90). Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. 1989

 

[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.

 

[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?

See history since 1787 jackass....

I know the history, I also know what the Founders thought, like the above, shit for brains. Learn some real history, not right-wing propaganda.

Again, if they just wanted a temporary document, they would have just kept the Articles of Confederation. But instead, they ripped it up & started over. Their actions described their intent. Are you truly this thick?

People who toss into the garbage, because it doesn't work for them, a previous constitution don't think that what they write will be in stone and live for eternity, shit for brains.

“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


They had humility, you are a fucking moron.

Here, let GW help you:

At the end of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington said, “I do not expect the Constitution to last for more than 20 years.” Today, the United States has oldest written constitution in the world. Why has the Constitution survived?
The Survival of the US Constitution | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"George Washington was pessimistic. The Constitutional Convention was nearing an end and had been so contentious, he said, that more than once it had been ''upon the point of dissolving without agreeing on any system.''

Walking through the streets of Philadelphia and talking with a delegate from Georgia, Abraham Baldwin, Washington said, ''I do not expect the Constitution to last for more than 20 years.''
NEW LIGHT ON 1787 AND WASHINGTON'S DOUBTS

 

[Little-Acorn]

Google "constitution living document" sometime, and you will see that many lawyers agree that it is a living document.

Of course they do... because if it weren't, many of them would be out of a job.

It is more correctly called an enduring document, because its basic purpose and philosophy remain unchanged.

Its purpose was to set up a new Federal government, describe its major branches, and transfer powers from the states to the Fed govt.

Any power it didn't explicitly transfer to the Fed, remained a power of the states if they wanted to exercise it, and was forbidden to the Federal govt.

And if the Fed wanted to take on more power, it couldn't, unless 3/4 of the states agreed.

Liberals hate that part, because they want the Fed govt to take a LOT more power... and they know that 3/4 of the states would never agree with them. So they bend themselves into strange pretzel shapes pretending the Social Security and Obamacare are merely "tax programs", pretending that things having little to do with Commerce are somehow controllable by the Commerce Clause, pretending that the Welfare Clause gives the Fed the power to do anything it wants that helps anyone, etc. etc.

Liberals do anything to get more power, except go through the amendment process described right in the Constitution. They know they are a small minority and will never come close to getting the required 3/4 of the states to turn power over to them.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Liberals do anything to get more power, except go through the amendment process described right in the Constitution.

We've done that time and again, which is why ******* have rights, women can vote, and you have guns, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, asswipe.

 

[regent]

Perhaps the reason our Constitution is the oldest of all the Constitutions and has lasted so long with so few amendments is because over the years it has been bent, slightly altered, changed, interpreted, adjusted and so forth to fit the times, add to that the Court's attempt to keep the Constitution current with the times with their decisions.
The state constitution of Alabama, for example, has been amended over 800 times and California's over 500 times.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

And your activist court broke with tradition to interpret it the way you wanted. Congratulations

 

[jillian]

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

 

[Si modo]

Using simply intent and plain meaning, the 2nd Amendment is crystal clear.

 

[norwegen]

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. 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.

 

[jillian]

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. 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.