The only Constitutional means to change the MEANING of the Constitution.

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
May 6, 2007
55,268
17,552
2,260
North Carolina
Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


Nothing in the section dealing with the Judiciary does it grant Judges or the Supreme Court the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution.

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


The Supreme Court is accepted as the arbiter of what is Constitutional. It however is NOT recognized as having the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution. Nor should it be recognized as being able to add unwritten meanings into said document.

Today's Liberals have made the claim that it is to time consuming and to archaic to use the Amendment process. They instead claim the Supreme Court and lower Federal Courts are at liberty to simply CHANGE the meaning of the articles and clauses in the Constitution.

One on this board in particular has STATED this in more then one thread.
 
Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


Nothing in the section dealing with the Judiciary does it grant Judges or the Supreme Court the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution.

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


The Supreme Court is accepted as the arbiter of what is Constitutional. It however is NOT recognized as having the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution. Nor should it be recognized as being able to add unwritten meanings into said document.

Today's Liberals have made the claim that it is to time consuming and to archaic to use the Amendment process. They instead claim the Supreme Court and lower Federal Courts are at liberty to simply CHANGE the meaning of the articles and clauses in the Constitution.

One on this board in particular has STATED this in more then one thread.

Where has the meaning of the Constitution been CHANGED? Give specific examples plz
 
There is little about the way that we live today that the Founding Fathers would recognize. How the rules that they laid down apply to new technologies is up to the interpretation of judges. There are many culteral adaptations that are also outside the ken of our founders. So someone has to rule as to how these fit into our laws and ethics.
 
Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


Nothing in the section dealing with the Judiciary does it grant Judges or the Supreme Court the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution.

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


The Supreme Court is accepted as the arbiter of what is Constitutional. It however is NOT recognized as having the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution. Nor should it be recognized as being able to add unwritten meanings into said document.

Today's Liberals have made the claim that it is to time consuming and to archaic to use the Amendment process. They instead claim the Supreme Court and lower Federal Courts are at liberty to simply CHANGE the meaning of the articles and clauses in the Constitution.

One on this board in particular has STATED this in more then one thread.

Ok then, who decides what the 'meaning' of the Constitution is and who decides whether or not the Supreme Court has in fact changed the 'meaning'?

Where is that process provided for in the Constitution?
 
Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


Nothing in the section dealing with the Judiciary does it grant Judges or the Supreme Court the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution.

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


The Supreme Court is accepted as the arbiter of what is Constitutional. It however is NOT recognized as having the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution. Nor should it be recognized as being able to add unwritten meanings into said document.

Today's Liberals have made the claim that it is to time consuming and to archaic to use the Amendment process. They instead claim the Supreme Court and lower Federal Courts are at liberty to simply CHANGE the meaning of the articles and clauses in the Constitution.

One on this board in particular has STATED this in more then one thread.

Where has the meaning of the Constitution been CHANGED? Give specific examples plz

Social Security, Medicare, Obama Care, HUD, Federal Education department. NONE are even remotely powers listed in the Constitution. There is no right to an abortion anywhere in the Constitution.
 
Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


Nothing in the section dealing with the Judiciary does it grant Judges or the Supreme Court the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution.

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


The Supreme Court is accepted as the arbiter of what is Constitutional. It however is NOT recognized as having the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution. Nor should it be recognized as being able to add unwritten meanings into said document.

Today's Liberals have made the claim that it is to time consuming and to archaic to use the Amendment process. They instead claim the Supreme Court and lower Federal Courts are at liberty to simply CHANGE the meaning of the articles and clauses in the Constitution.

One on this board in particular has STATED this in more then one thread.

Another senile rant, RGS?

angry-old-man.jpg
 
Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


Nothing in the section dealing with the Judiciary does it grant Judges or the Supreme Court the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution.

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


The Supreme Court is accepted as the arbiter of what is Constitutional. It however is NOT recognized as having the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution. Nor should it be recognized as being able to add unwritten meanings into said document.

Today's Liberals have made the claim that it is to time consuming and to archaic to use the Amendment process. They instead claim the Supreme Court and lower Federal Courts are at liberty to simply CHANGE the meaning of the articles and clauses in the Constitution.

One on this board in particular has STATED this in more then one thread.

Another senile rant, RGS?

angry-old-man.jpg

Ask Rightwinger he has stated in at least 3 threads now that the Constitution should never be amended again. Further he stated in one thread that it is to time consuming to use the amendment process and that Federal Courts should in fact simply make the changes needed by changing what different parts of said document says and means.
 
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


Nothing in the section dealing with the Judiciary does it grant Judges or the Supreme Court the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution.



The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


The Supreme Court is accepted as the arbiter of what is Constitutional. It however is NOT recognized as having the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution. Nor should it be recognized as being able to add unwritten meanings into said document.

Today's Liberals have made the claim that it is to time consuming and to archaic to use the Amendment process. They instead claim the Supreme Court and lower Federal Courts are at liberty to simply CHANGE the meaning of the articles and clauses in the Constitution.

One on this board in particular has STATED this in more then one thread.

Where has the meaning of the Constitution been CHANGED? Give specific examples plz

Social Security, Medicare, Obama Care, HUD, Federal Education department. NONE are even remotely powers listed in the Constitution. There is no right to an abortion anywhere in the Constitution.

There is a right to an abortion in the Constitution because there are no fetal rights in the Constitution.
 
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


Nothing in the section dealing with the Judiciary does it grant Judges or the Supreme Court the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution.



The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


The Supreme Court is accepted as the arbiter of what is Constitutional. It however is NOT recognized as having the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution. Nor should it be recognized as being able to add unwritten meanings into said document.

Today's Liberals have made the claim that it is to time consuming and to archaic to use the Amendment process. They instead claim the Supreme Court and lower Federal Courts are at liberty to simply CHANGE the meaning of the articles and clauses in the Constitution.

One on this board in particular has STATED this in more then one thread.

Where has the meaning of the Constitution been CHANGED? Give specific examples plz

Social Security, Medicare, Obama Care, HUD, Federal Education department. NONE are even remotely powers listed in the Constitution. There is no right to an abortion anywhere in the Constitution.

Social Security was ruled Constitutional in the 1930's.
 
There is little about the way that we live today that the Founding Fathers would recognize. How the rules that they laid down apply to new technologies is up to the interpretation of judges. There are many culteral adaptations that are also outside the ken of our founders. So someone has to rule as to how these fit into our laws and ethics.

They did not lay down rules for technology that are out of date because they had no concept about Twitter. What they laid down were rules for the government that are just as applicable today as they were 200 years ago. I think that proves they were smarter than you, and that you are not qualified to have an informed opinion about anything the subject at all.
 
Last edited:
There is little about the way that we live today that the Founding Fathers would recognize. How the rules that they laid down apply to new technologies is up to the interpretation of judges. There are many culteral adaptations that are also outside the ken of our founders. So someone has to rule as to how these fit into our laws and ethics.

Exactly. Judges have the unenviable task of taking old ideas and trying to apply them to new concepts they were never intended to cover, but in the absence of anything new somebody has to figure out how to do it. And the legislative sits back and moans about it, but never does anything to fix it. Bunch of pansies.

The problem isn't that the amendment process shouldn't be used, it's that it should be used more. The courts are a check on the legislative, but the legislative are also a check on the courts through initiating that process. Instead of bitching and using "judicial activism" as a moneymaker, they need to get off their butts and do something to make everybody's job easier.
 
Last edited:
Where has the meaning of the Constitution been CHANGED? Give specific examples plz

Social Security, Medicare, Obama Care, HUD, Federal Education department. NONE are even remotely powers listed in the Constitution. There is no right to an abortion anywhere in the Constitution.

There is a right to an abortion in the Constitution because there are no fetal rights in the Constitution.

Read the 5th Amendment and try again.
 
There is little about the way that we live today that the Founding Fathers would recognize. How the rules that they laid down apply to new technologies is up to the interpretation of judges. There are many culteral adaptations that are also outside the ken of our founders. So someone has to rule as to how these fit into our laws and ethics.

Exactly. Judges have the unenviable task of taking old ideas and trying to apply them to new concepts they were never intended to cover, but in the absence of anything new somebody has to figure out how to do it. And the legislative sits back and moans about it, but never does anything to fix it. Bunch of pansies.

The problem isn't that the amendment process shouldn't be used, it's that it should be used more. The courts are a check on the legislative, but the legislative are also a check on the courts through that process. Instead of bitching and using "judicial activism" as a moneymaker, they need to get off their butts and do something to make everybody's job easier.

The Amendment process was made difficult for a reason.
 
There is little about the way that we live today that the Founding Fathers would recognize. How the rules that they laid down apply to new technologies is up to the interpretation of judges. There are many culteral adaptations that are also outside the ken of our founders. So someone has to rule as to how these fit into our laws and ethics.

Exactly. Judges have the unenviable task of taking old ideas and trying to apply them to new concepts they were never intended to cover, but in the absence of anything new somebody has to figure out how to do it. And the legislative sits back and moans about it, but never does anything to fix it. Bunch of pansies.

The problem isn't that the amendment process shouldn't be used, it's that it should be used more. The courts are a check on the legislative, but the legislative are also a check on the courts through initiating that process. Instead of bitching and using "judicial activism" as a moneymaker, they need to get off their butts and do something to make everybody's job easier.

If the legislature does not address it maybe that is because it is not a problem the legislature should deal with. Most of the problems the federal judiciary has to deal with are a result of the legislature making laws, not the Constitution not being modern enough for your taste.
 
There is little about the way that we live today that the Founding Fathers would recognize. How the rules that they laid down apply to new technologies is up to the interpretation of judges. There are many culteral adaptations that are also outside the ken of our founders. So someone has to rule as to how these fit into our laws and ethics.

They did not lay down rules for technology that are out of date because they had no concept about Twitter. What they laid down were rules for the government that are just as applicable today as they were 200 years ago. I think that proves they were smarter than you, and that you are not qualified to have an informed opinion about anything the subject at all.

It's not necessarily rules for technology, although clarifications or additions to concepts that can be more easily applied to modern technology wouldn't hurt.

But look at the debates over the citizenship clause as just one example. When that was written, there was no concept of controlled immigration or of illegality being a status rather than a behavior. That's something that has changed dramatically, yet the old language that was not intended to cover today's circumstances are being applied - because that's all the courts have, so that's what they have to use. They can't amend the thing, but they get bitched at for the result.
 
There is little about the way that we live today that the Founding Fathers would recognize. How the rules that they laid down apply to new technologies is up to the interpretation of judges. There are many culteral adaptations that are also outside the ken of our founders. So someone has to rule as to how these fit into our laws and ethics.

Exactly. Judges have the unenviable task of taking old ideas and trying to apply them to new concepts they were never intended to cover, but in the absence of anything new somebody has to figure out how to do it. And the legislative sits back and moans about it, but never does anything to fix it. Bunch of pansies.

The problem isn't that the amendment process shouldn't be used, it's that it should be used more. The courts are a check on the legislative, but the legislative are also a check on the courts through initiating that process. Instead of bitching and using "judicial activism" as a moneymaker, they need to get off their butts and do something to make everybody's job easier.

If the legislature does not address it maybe that is because it is not a problem the legislature should deal with. Most of the problems the federal judiciary has to deal with are a result of the legislature making laws, not the Constitution not being modern enough for your taste.

Is it really? In some cases you'd be right. But in others, some bizarre results end up happening when the judiciary has to bend itself in a pretzel to get an outcome on a case. The COTUS simply wasn't written for the modern world. And that's fine, its core concepts and structures are solid if stretched thin and bent into pretzels to come up with a ruling on cases to which they weren't meant to apply, but if the legislative doesn't like what the courts have to say they and only they have the power to check it. That being through the amendment process.

We've had several amendments passed in order to "overrule" the courts in the past. For all the yowling we hear these days about how awful the court's interpretations are, how many amendments are proposed to change them? How often does the legislative whip out the judicial veto override?

I stand by my assessment of Congress as a pack of lazy pansies who would rather have the courts to run against than actually do anything about what they claim is a problem.
 
Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


Nothing in the section dealing with the Judiciary does it grant Judges or the Supreme Court the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution.

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


The Supreme Court is accepted as the arbiter of what is Constitutional. It however is NOT recognized as having the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution. Nor should it be recognized as being able to add unwritten meanings into said document.

Today's Liberals have made the claim that it is to time consuming and to archaic to use the Amendment process. They instead claim the Supreme Court and lower Federal Courts are at liberty to simply CHANGE the meaning of the articles and clauses in the Constitution.

One on this board in particular has STATED this in more then one thread.

Nacht der langen Messer

 
There is little about the way that we live today that the Founding Fathers would recognize. How the rules that they laid down apply to new technologies is up to the interpretation of judges. There are many culteral adaptations that are also outside the ken of our founders. So someone has to rule as to how these fit into our laws and ethics.

They did not lay down rules for technology that are out of date because they had no concept about Twitter. What they laid down were rules for the government that are just as applicable today as they were 200 years ago. I think that proves they were smarter than you, and that you are not qualified to have an informed opinion about anything the subject at all.

It's not necessarily rules for technology, although clarifications or additions to concepts that can be more easily applied to modern technology wouldn't hurt.

But look at the debates over the citizenship clause as just one example. When that was written, there was no concept of controlled immigration or of illegality being a status rather than a behavior. That's something that has changed dramatically, yet the old language that was not intended to cover today's circumstances are being applied - because that's all the courts have, so that's what they have to use. They can't amend the thing, but they get bitched at for the result.

And, as far as I know, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from making laws about immigration. In fact, quite a few laws exist that cover that already, and the Supreme Court apparently has no problems with them. I also believe that the court has ruled that Congress even has the power to define exactly what is, and is not, meant by the words used, like natural born citizen.

The only serious problem we have now regarding immigration is the result of an Amendment to the original language of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment bestows citizenship on every person born in the US, so trying to blame the original language and saying that the Constitution should be easier to amend doesn't make sense. That would just open us up to more problems that we don't need, just like every state that has a bunch of amendments and later revocations of those amendments. Do you really want to see more mistakes like prohibition eneacted on a national scale?
 
Exactly. Judges have the unenviable task of taking old ideas and trying to apply them to new concepts they were never intended to cover, but in the absence of anything new somebody has to figure out how to do it. And the legislative sits back and moans about it, but never does anything to fix it. Bunch of pansies.

The problem isn't that the amendment process shouldn't be used, it's that it should be used more. The courts are a check on the legislative, but the legislative are also a check on the courts through initiating that process. Instead of bitching and using "judicial activism" as a moneymaker, they need to get off their butts and do something to make everybody's job easier.

If the legislature does not address it maybe that is because it is not a problem the legislature should deal with. Most of the problems the federal judiciary has to deal with are a result of the legislature making laws, not the Constitution not being modern enough for your taste.

Is it really? In some cases you'd be right. But in others, some bizarre results end up happening when the judiciary has to bend itself in a pretzel to get an outcome on a case. The COTUS simply wasn't written for the modern world. And that's fine, its core concepts and structures are solid if stretched thin and bent into pretzels to come up with a ruling on cases to which they weren't meant to apply, but if the legislative doesn't like what the courts have to say they and only they have the power to check it. That being through the amendment process.

We've had several amendments passed in order to "overrule" the courts in the past. For all the yowling we hear these days about how awful the court's interpretations are, how many amendments are proposed to change them? How often does the legislative whip out the judicial veto override?

I stand by my assessment of Congress as a pack of lazy pansies who would rather have the courts to run against than actually do anything about what they claim is a problem.

Exactly how does the court have to twist itself into a pretzel to interpret the Bill of Rights and apply it to modern technology. Most of the pretzeling I see is the courts trying to say the Constitution doesn't apply to stuff. Why else do we get the idea that you need a warrant to search a house or regular mail, but that electronic communications is not similarly protected?

You are much more experienced with this that I am, but I am willing to bet that if you thought about it you would agree. Almost all of the bad decisions and precedents are the result of the courts trying not to apply the Constitution, not them trying to apply it. Dred Scott seems to be a perfect example to me, as does the doctrine of separate plus equal and the various other decisions that effectively nullified most of the amendments after the civil war.
 

Forum List

Back
Top