Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Look man. When our constitution was written, they couldn't conceive of icbms and terrorist nation/states given UN protection by anxious antiamerican euroliberals, eager for an ally against the U.S.
Foreign policy is/has been/ always will be about preemption.
Just In Time (JIT) defense policies are not good enough anymore.
Originally posted by NewGuy
Show me one place.....just one.....where the Constitution is about PREEMPTION as opposed to REACTION.
Originally posted by Kathianne
New Guy, I'm pretty sure I have a handle on this but just want clarification, you are for a 'strict' reading of the Constitution, right? No room for interpretation?
Originally posted by NewGuy
As a teacher, think about this very carefully......
Isn't this true? :
When taking things IN CONTEXT.....interpretation is IMPOSSIBLE.
Originally posted by Kathianne
Then where is the 'living, breathing document'? Context is ever changing. Not arguing, want your point of view.
Originally posted by NewGuy
Was that a typo?
Context never changes in a document.
point of view or reference with a reader changes, but not context of a document.
Originally posted by Kathianne
The context of the document doesn't change, but the context of when it is being applied, in the case of the Constitution does...
Originally posted by NewGuy
Congrats!!!!!
Any GNASHING of teeth?
Originally posted by NewGuy
Huh?
Originally posted by Kathianne
C'mon, don't be coy. You do know what I mean....
Originally posted by HGROKIT
I am with him as for understanding here.
See, it is the same principle with scripture. Everyone says you have to put in it contect with what is happening today. i.e. the sexual revolution as they call it. That is a bunch of bunk. The context about sex has not changed, people are changing it to suit their needs.
So...in the case of teh Constitiution, if I understand New Guys point...its' context will never change, it is society trying to change the way they view it based on what they want it to say today.
Wow, that hurt.:scratch:
Originally posted by Kathianne
No matter how one slices it and I'm not denying the Judeo/Christian link, the Constitution is not scripture based, though I believe there are points that link to Judeo/Christian beliefs. One must never forget the deists, not to mention Enlightenment influence. The fundamentalists do not have a lock on the Constitution.
Originally posted by Kathianne
C'mon, don't be coy. You do know what I mean....
Originally posted by NewGuy
"The context of the document doesn't change, but the context of when it is being applied, in the case of the Constitution does"
Literally, what this appears to say is:
The document's context is fixed. It always means the same thing.
People's circumstances change and therefore the fixed document needs to be applied differently.
-The problem here is that means an excuse has just been made to take it out of context. -Which invalidates your statement.
Originally posted by Kathianne
You ARE being coy. What it meant is that the Framers could not have anticipated all the changes that would be wrought over 2 C.
Originally posted by NewGuy
Irrelevant.
Context is context.
Originally posted by NewGuy
"The context of the document doesn't change, but the context of when it is being applied, in the case of the Constitution does"
Literally, what this appears to say is:
The document's context is fixed. It always means the same thing.
People's circumstances change and therefore the fixed document needs to be applied differently.
-The problem here is that means an excuse has just been made to take it out of context. -Which invalidates your statement.
Originally posted by HGROKIT
huh? isn't that what I jsut posted in my long around about way?
Geez my jaw hurts from all the gnashing of teeth.
Originally posted by Kathianne
Gee thanks, I thought the noise was my head against the wall....
