“The Constitution is an outdated document authored by old white guys.”

[Richard-H]

The U.S. Constitution is a great document that has been the basis for the incredible success of the United States.

However, it was written over 200 years ago when the U.S.. was a very, very different country.

While the majority of the Constitution is still very valid, some parts are outdated. It's primary fault is that it sets way too high a bar for adding new amendments. It should be a living document that can be updated to fulfill the needs of our current society.

On the otherhand if the bar for adding new amendments is set to low, it could get radically changed too often based on shortsighted political concerns without consideration for the future.

I wish that the bar for adding new amendments was a little bit lower, but not by much.

 

[JLW]

Like any document that was drafted by human beings it is subject to interpretation. The brilliance of the Constitution is that it is written in broad strokes.

All Americans are "pro-constitution". Those talking heads who go on forums like this and declare themselves constitutional authorities or who call themselves "pro-constitution" are anything but. The Constitution is subject to different interpretations. The drafters of the constitution could not agree how it was to be interpreted.

No one has an exclusive claim on constitutional interpretation.

What a load of bullshit
If it can be interpreted differently, why have anything at all? Its fucking redundant.
What a dumb, thoughtless comment.

You moron you obviously have not read the constitution or else you would not have made an insipid comment. But hey you say you're an expert...ROTFLMAO.

 

[g5000]

One of my favorite parts of Democracy in America:

The French codes are often difficult to comprehend, but they can be read by everyone; nothing, on the other hand, can be more obscure and strange to the uninitiated than a legislation founded upon precedents. The absolute need of legal aid that is felt in England and the United States, and the high opinion that is entertained of the ability of the legal profession, tend to separate it more and more from the people and to erect it into a distinct class. The French lawyer is simply a man extensively acquainted with the statutes of his country; but the English or American lawyer resembles the hierophants of Egypt, for like them he is the sole interpreter of an occult science.

The position that lawyers occupy in England and America exercises no less influence upon their habits and opinions. The English aristocracy, which has taken care to attract to its sphere whatever is at all analogous to itself, has conferred a high degree of importance and authority upon the members of the legal profession. In English society, lawyers do not occupy the first rank, but they are contented with the station assigned to them: they constitute, as it were, the younger branch of the English aristocracy; and they are attached to their elder brothers, although they do not enjoy all their privileges. The English lawyers consequently mingle the aristocratic tastes and ideas of the circles in which they move with the aristocratic interests of their profession.

And, indeed, the lawyer-like character that I am endeavoring to depict is most distinctly to be met with in England: there laws are esteemed not so much because they are good as because they are old; and if it is necessary to modify them in any respect, to adapt them to the changes that time operates in society, recourse is had to the most inconceivable subtleties in order to uphold the traditionary fabric and to maintain that nothing has been done which does not square with the intentions and complete the labors of former generations. The very individuals who conduct these changes disclaim any desire for innovation and had rather resort to absurd expedients than plead guilty to so great a crime. This spirit appertains more especially to the English lawyers; they appear indifferent to the real meaning of what they treat, and they direct all their attention to the letter, seeming inclined to abandon reason and humanity rather than to swerve one tittle from the law. English legislation may be compared to the stock of an old tree upon which lawyers have engrafted the most dissimilar shoots in the hope that, although their fruits may differ, their foliage at least will be confused with the venerable trunk that supports them all.

In America there are no nobles or literary men, and the people are apt to mistrust the wealthy; lawyers consequently form the highest political class and the most cultivated portion of society. They have therefore nothing to gain by innovation, which adds a conservative interest to their natural taste for public order. If I were asked where I place the American aristocracy, I should reply without hesitation that it is not among the rich, who are united by no common tie, but that it occupies the judicial bench and the bar.

The more we reflect upon all that occurs in the United States the more we shall be persuaded that the lawyers, as a body, form the most powerful, if not the only, counterpoise to the democratic element. In that country we easily perceive how the legal profession is qualified by its attributes, and even by its faults, to neutralize the vices inherent in popular government. When the American people are intoxicated by passion or carried away by the impetuosity of their ideas, they are checked and stopped by the almost invisible influence of their legal counselors. These secretly oppose their aristocratic propensities to the nation's democratic instincts, their superstitious attachment to what is old to its love of novelty, their narrow views to its immense designs, and their habitual procrastination to its ardent impatience.

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 16

 

[JLW]

Like any document that was drafted by human beings it is subject to interpretation. The brilliance of the Constitution is that it is written in broad strokes.

All Americans are "pro-constitution". Those talking heads who go on forums like this and declare themselves constitutional authorities or who call themselves "pro-constitution" are anything but. The Constitution is subject to different interpretations. The drafters of the constitution could not agree how it was to be interpreted.

No one has an exclusive claim on constitutional interpretation.

What a load of bullshit
If it can be interpreted differently, why have anything at all? Its fucking redundant.
What a dumb, thoughtless comment.

I interpret this to mean that you do like the idea of a living breathing document that changes with every election cycle.

Am I right?

That anyone would disagree that the interpretation of the constitution has changed with the times knows nothing of constitutional law. Strict Constructionism is just another form of constitutional interpretation that is noting more than reading the document narrowly as opposed to broadly.

 

[TNHarley]

Like any document that was drafted by human beings it is subject to interpretation. The brilliance of the Constitution is that it is written in broad strokes.

All Americans are "pro-constitution". Those talking heads who go on forums like this and declare themselves constitutional authorities or who call themselves "pro-constitution" are anything but. The Constitution is subject to different interpretations. The drafters of the constitution could not agree how it was to be interpreted.

No one has an exclusive claim on constitutional interpretation.

What a load of bullshit
If it can be interpreted differently, why have anything at all? Its fucking redundant.
What a dumb, thoughtless comment.

You moron you obviously have not read the constitution or else you would not have made an insipid comment. But hey you say you're an expert...ROTFLMAO.

I never claimed to be an expert. I claim to love the document. I adhere to it. I support it. Most importantly, i can read English
Take your statist BS somewhere else bro

 

[TNHarley]

Like any document that was drafted by human beings it is subject to interpretation. The brilliance of the Constitution is that it is written in broad strokes.

All Americans are "pro-constitution". Those talking heads who go on forums like this and declare themselves constitutional authorities or who call themselves "pro-constitution" are anything but. The Constitution is subject to different interpretations. The drafters of the constitution could not agree how it was to be interpreted.

No one has an exclusive claim on constitutional interpretation.

What a load of bullshit
If it can be interpreted differently, why have anything at all? Its fucking redundant.
What a dumb, thoughtless comment.

I interpret this to mean that you do like the idea of a living breathing document that changes with every election cycle.

Am I right?

That anyone would disagree that the interpretation of the constitution has changed with the times knows nothing of constitutional law. Strict Constructionism is just another form of constitutional interpretation that is noting more than reading the document narrowly as opposed to broadly.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Sooo....who are the Constitutionalists these days?

None of you.

 

[easyt65]

“The Constitution is an outdated document authored by old white guys”.....SAYS:

The former President who was found to be in violation of the Constitution several times....

The DNC's Felon Candidate who rigged primaries, cheated in debates, and still lost the election because she had no idea Presidents are elected by the Electoral college...

The 20-year Chinese Spy who just intentionally attempted to destroy a US citizen for political party gain....

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Sooo....who are the Constitutionalists these days?

None of you.

Paleo-Conservative - Fascist mixes for gun rights, and low taxes.

 

[g5000]

The U.S. Constitution is a great document that has been the basis for the incredible success of the United States.

However, it was written over 200 years ago when the U.S.. was a very, very different country.

While the majority of the Constitution is still very valid, some parts are outdated. It's primary fault is that it sets way too high a bar for adding new amendments. It should be a living document that can be updated to fulfill the needs of our current society.

On the otherhand if the bar for adding new amendments is set to low, it could get radically changed too often based on shortsighted political concerns without consideration for the future.

I wish that the bar for adding new amendments was a little bit lower, but not by much.

I very much like that the bar is high for changing the Constitution.

It works very well. Those who want to lower the bar want our government to be even bigger than it already is. It is already too big, too intrusive, and too controlling.

I don't know why people are so afraid to be responsible for themselves.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Sooo....who are the Constitutionalists these days?

Me

Not so much, the Founding Fathers America was against Capitalism , and for Corporate Regulation, against Campaign contributions from business, and against non-Whites as U.S.A citizens, they also only allowed 6% of the U.S.A to vote being land-owning White males.
AND
Isolationalists militarily, heck Jefferson initially was against a standing army.

 

[JLW]

Like any document that was drafted by human beings it is subject to interpretation. The brilliance of the Constitution is that it is written in broad strokes.

All Americans are "pro-constitution". Those talking heads who go on forums like this and declare themselves constitutional authorities or who call themselves "pro-constitution" are anything but. The Constitution is subject to different interpretations. The drafters of the constitution could not agree how it was to be interpreted.

No one has an exclusive claim on constitutional interpretation.

What a load of bullshit
If it can be interpreted differently, why have anything at all? Its fucking redundant.
What a dumb, thoughtless comment.

You moron you obviously have not read the constitution or else you would not have made an insipid comment. But hey you say you're an expert...ROTFLMAO.

I never claimed to be an expert. I claim to love the document. I adhere to it. I support it. Most importantly, i can read English
Take your statist BS somewhere else bro

Point of clarification. What do you mean by statist? The Constitution was a replacement for the Articles of Confederation which left too much power in the hands of the individual states and thus was unwieldy. It was replaced by the current incarnation of the Constitution. The Constitution was to consolidate more power in the federal government and away from the states. Your avatar, Abe Lincoln, was the man who smashed any thoughts that the individual states had any identity except through the Union.

 

[TNHarley]

Like any document that was drafted by human beings it is subject to interpretation. The brilliance of the Constitution is that it is written in broad strokes.

All Americans are "pro-constitution". Those talking heads who go on forums like this and declare themselves constitutional authorities or who call themselves "pro-constitution" are anything but. The Constitution is subject to different interpretations. The drafters of the constitution could not agree how it was to be interpreted.

No one has an exclusive claim on constitutional interpretation.

What a load of bullshit
If it can be interpreted differently, why have anything at all? Its fucking redundant.
What a dumb, thoughtless comment.

You moron you obviously have not read the constitution or else you would not have made an insipid comment. But hey you say you're an expert...ROTFLMAO.

I never claimed to be an expert. I claim to love the document. I adhere to it. I support it. Most importantly, i can read English
Take your statist BS somewhere else bro

Point of clarification. What do you mean by statist? The Constitution was a replacement for the Articles of Confederation which left too much power in the hands of the individual states and thus was unwieldy. It was replaced by the current incarnation of the Constitution. The Constitution was to consolidate more power in the federal government and away from the states. Your avatar, Abe Lincoln, was the man who smashed any thoughts that the individual states had any identity except through Union.

I understand that.
The Constitution is clear. Your bullshit "living document" argument isnt even LOGICAL. Its completely absurd, to be frank. Its used by statists to fool the derpy people that are too fucking lazy to think.
No need to bring up that murderous, tyrannical piece of shit.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

The Constitution is one of the greatest pro liberty documents ever made.
Too bad our bedwetters and corporatists dont fucking follow it.

I've made threads explaining the Founding Father's, and they were actually closer to Corporatism in the Fascist sense, than Capitalism in your Republican sense.
They also were very intolerant, and not terriblly Democratic. (More like Fascists, and Islamic extremists by modern accounts across the board)

Founding Fathers not Capitalists.

Founding Fathers like Arabs, Fascists rather than modern Republicans / Democrats.

 

[JLW]

Like any document that was drafted by human beings it is subject to interpretation. The brilliance of the Constitution is that it is written in broad strokes.

All Americans are "pro-constitution". Those talking heads who go on forums like this and declare themselves constitutional authorities or who call themselves "pro-constitution" are anything but. The Constitution is subject to different interpretations. The drafters of the constitution could not agree how it was to be interpreted.

No one has an exclusive claim on constitutional interpretation.

What a load of bullshit
If it can be interpreted differently, why have anything at all? Its fucking redundant.
What a dumb, thoughtless comment.

You moron you obviously have not read the constitution or else you would not have made an insipid comment. But hey you say you're an expert...ROTFLMAO.

I never claimed to be an expert. I claim to love the document. I adhere to it. I support it. Most importantly, i can read English
Take your statist BS somewhere else bro

Point of clarification. What do you mean by statist? The Constitution was a replacement for the Articles of Confederation which left too much power in the hands of the individual states and thus was unwieldy. It was replaced by the current incarnation of the Constitution. The Constitution was to consolidate more power in the federal government and away from the states. Your avatar, Abe Lincoln, was the man who smashed any thoughts that the individual states had any identity except through Union.

I understand that.
The Constitution is clear. Your bullshit "living document" argument isnt even LOGICAL. Its completely absurd, to be frank. Its used by statists to fool the derpy people that are too fucking lazy to think.
No need to bring up that murderous, tyrannical piece of shit.

Scalia like to say the Constitution was "dead, dead, dead". But his own opinions showed he was frequently engaging in his own speculations as to what the founders were thinking. As I wrote before, the founders were in virulent disagreement what the founders intended. The case of Marbury v. Madison is such a case. This case started it all and Jefferson hated it. The Supreme Court set the precedent that it had the power to decide what was and was not constitutional.

The point is the interpretation of the Constitution and how it was going to be interpreted has been going on since the founding of the Republic.

The way the Constitution has stayed relevant is precisely because it is fluid. If it were rigid it would have fallen apart a long time ago. The world we live in is far different from the time of Madison and Jefferson.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Donald Trump acts as if the Constitution is a real nuisance.

Actually President Trump is doing things the correct way.
Obama is the idiot who would not work with congress and who abused his power.

 

[BluesLegend]

Democrats selectively love the Constitution when it protects the liberal agenda, and hate the Constitution when it gets in the way of their tyranny.

 

[basquebromance]

women are not people God just put them here for man's entertainment

 

[Dan Stubbs]

We’ve all heard Lefties say it straight out...right?
There’s been lots of talk about who the ‘pro constitution’ groups are or aren’t.
Sooo....who are the Constitutionalists these days?

Yep. this is right out of the George Soro's play book which allows the Constitution to be rewriten at any given time. Opens the doors for more Progressive goals of open borders, legal drugs, Judges picked by Progressive Boards, votes counted from anyone from any nation, American people charged in UN courts. Yes this is a good idea.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

women are not people God just put them here for man's entertainment

Well after all, it was Adam's rib.