CDZ Trump feels he would protect Article XII of the U.S. Constitution

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems already set the bar so low, this is not an issue

 

[OldLady]

Dems already set the bar so low, this is not an issue

Yeah, those were pretty funny. The dead people especially. But he can't hold a candle to ole GW Bush.

 

[dblack]

The only major candidate who will defend the Constitution is Gary Johnson.

 

[320 Years of History]

The only major candidate who will defend the Constitution is Gary Johnson.

Frankly, I don't think the Constitution needs "defending" because:

• It's not going anywhere. We are nowhere near a point whereby, as a nation, we are of a mind to cast it off as the document that informs how our nation works.
• It's designed and meant to be modified. IIRC, it has been modified some 27 times, one such modification taking over 200 years to effect.

Changed and interpreted however and to whatever extent it happen, the Constitution will remain unassailable as exactly what it is, our supreme document of law. Nobody is trying to replace it as such.

 

[dblack]

The only major candidate who will defend the Constitution is Gary Johnson.

Frankly, I don't think the Constitution needs "defending" because:

• It's not going anywhere. We are nowhere near a point whereby, as a nation, we are of a mind to cast it off as the document that informs how our nation works.
• It's designed and meant to be modified. IIRC, it has been modified some 27 times, one such modification taking over 200 years to effect.

Changed and interpreted however and to whatever extent it happen, the Constitution will remain unassailable as exactly what it is, our supreme document of law. Nobody is trying to replace it as such.

Your equivocation speaks otherwise. A document that can be "changed and interpreted however and to whatever extent" isn't binding and has no substance. When I say defend the Constitution, I mean defending it from those who would erode its protections via re-interpretation and dismissal. Congress is failing us by doing that. And the Court is failing us by accommodating them.

 

[320 Years of History]

The only major candidate who will defend the Constitution is Gary Johnson.

Frankly, I don't think the Constitution needs "defending" because:

• It's not going anywhere. We are nowhere near a point whereby, as a nation, we are of a mind to cast it off as the document that informs how our nation works.
• It's designed and meant to be modified. IIRC, it has been modified some 27 times, one such modification taking over 200 years to effect.

Changed and interpreted however and to whatever extent it happen, the Constitution will remain unassailable as exactly what it is, our supreme document of law. Nobody is trying to replace it as such.

Your equivocation speaks otherwise. A document that can be "changed and interpreted however and to whatever extent" isn't binding and has no substance. When I say defend the Constitution, I mean defending it from those who would erode its protections via re-interpretation and dismissal. Congress is failing us by doing that. And the Court is failing us by accommodating them.

What equivocation have you specifically in mind?

 

[dblack]

The only major candidate who will defend the Constitution is Gary Johnson.

Frankly, I don't think the Constitution needs "defending" because:

• It's not going anywhere. We are nowhere near a point whereby, as a nation, we are of a mind to cast it off as the document that informs how our nation works.
• It's designed and meant to be modified. IIRC, it has been modified some 27 times, one such modification taking over 200 years to effect.

Changed and interpreted however and to whatever extent it happen, the Constitution will remain unassailable as exactly what it is, our supreme document of law. Nobody is trying to replace it as such.

Your equivocation speaks otherwise. A document that can be "changed and interpreted however and to whatever extent" isn't binding and has no substance. When I say defend the Constitution, I mean defending it from those who would erode its protections via re-interpretation and dismissal. Congress is failing us by doing that. And the Court is failing us by accommodating them.

What equivocation have you specifically in mind?

You're equivocating the fact that the Constitution includes provisions for its modification (the amendment process) with the idea that it's subject to reinterpretation. The attacks on the Constitution aren't in the form of amendments. Those are legitimate and maintain the sovereignty agreement at heart of document. Changing the Constitution by manipulating its meaning is the problem. That's, essentially, rewriting a contract after it's signed, and undermines sovereignty. It's one of the biggest reasons trust in government is at such an all time low.

 

[320 Years of History]

You're equivocating the fact that the Constitution includes provisions for its modification (the amendment process) with the idea that it's subject to reinterpretation.

First:
How is that equivocating? Both are true, and I was not unclear about my view regarding either fact.

• The document's provisions can be modified.
• The document's provisions as they exist now need to be interpreted.

Second:
I didn't say anything about "re" interpreting. I said "interpretation." One organization -- the SCOTUS -- is given the authority to interpret the Constitution. Like it or not, the individuals who sit on the SCOTUS' bench interpret what the Constitution's provision mean and their interpretation stands until they or subsequent SCOTUS jurists decide otherwise.

Third:
Have you ever come by a "broad brush" document like the Constitution that isn't subject to interpretation? I don't care if one takes a strict constructionist or loose constructionist view toward interpreting the document, each approach is still an interpretation of the words and intent of the document and its passages. What the hell else is one to do but interpret the document's provisions that were written by people who are dead and not around to say, "XYZ is what we had in mind when we wrote and ratified 'such and such;' thus the context in which it's being applied with regard to 'such and such' modern circumstance is or is not at all what we had in mind to prohibit/allow, assail/protect, discourage/encourage, and so on."?

Fourth:
Part of successful governance includes interpreting existing legislation, including the Constitution, so that it works with the mores of the day. For some of those dicta, that means amending the document. For others, it's just a matter of altering the way in which the document's statements are interpreted. Which approach to pursue depends on a number of factors, but that there are multiple valid interpretations is not in question, even though some folks prefer one interpretation (or mode there of) over others. That fact is that one stance is better at "this" point in time and another stance is better at "that" point in time.

The U.S. is not a nation that should ever become so entrenched in managing itself using and applying principles, ideas, in precisely the same way they were used and applied some 300 odd years ago. The world has ample illustrations of the dangers and resultant calamity of being ideologically intransigent.

The folks who call themselves ISIS are one such example. Were ISIS to be able to interpret and apply he principles of their faith within the modern context of how the world operates now rather than trying to apply, in full literality, 1400 year old axioms, we wouldn't have the problems with them that we do now. Billions of Muslims have been able to reason their way to interpreting the Quran so that their adherence to their faith does not conflict with the prevailing mores of modern life and the other billions of individuals living with them in modern times. Billions of Christians and Jews have done the same thing with regard to the articles of their belief systems. In short, they manage to adhere to their belief systems, their religious laws, without stepping on everyone else's toes, so to speak.

Those Muslims, Christians and Jews don't even have the option of rewriting their religious laws. One cannot amend the Bible, Quran or Torah. One can take the less drastic step of interpreting it in a way that "works" with how the world has changed since those documents were written. The only other alternatives are to (1) discard the documents that formed those belief systems or (2) cease to accept the belief system.

The Constitution is not entirely like any of those three law giving documents. It was designed to be flexible, but the expressly provided process for flexing it -- the amendment process -- does not preclude us from using less drastic means -- less drastic than an amendment -- of applying the ideas in the document in varying ways as our society changes. The less drastic means of flexing the document is to move back and forth between various degrees of strict and loose constructions of the Constitution's provisions and the needs and demands of the citizenry ebb and flow.

Frankly, I think you're being more than a little bit disingenuous. I all but certain that for those provisions for which you don't agree with the current interpretation, be it loose or strict, you won't push for an amendment and will instead argue that an interpretative shift is sufficient. Yet, you'll also insist on using the amendment process with regard to those provisions for which you concur with the current interpretation and with which others disagree and want changed.

To illustrate, consider two interpretations currently in place re: the Constitution's provisions:

• Gun Rights: The Constitution is currently interpreted to mean that the "right to bear arms" is an individual right. Thus we all, in general, get to buy/own/possess guns.
• Abortion Rights: The Constitution is currently interpreted to mean that a fetus is not due the rights of a born person. Thus women can have or not have abortions without risking being charged with murder or accessory to murder, or something along those lines.

Some people/groups will say, "Fine. You want the "right to bear arms" to not be construed as an individual right, pursue the amendment process." The very same people/groups, however, do not think, "We must/should pursue the amendment process to provide person rights to fetuses." They are perfectly content to achieve that end via the interpretive approach.

Now I don't know where you specifically fall on those two issues; thus I don't know if the following applies specifically to you, but if they don't, they yet illustrate the point I'm making. That point is that unless you are of a mind to tell me that every damn constitutional matter that comes before the SCOTUS needs to be incorporated into the CONUS via an amendment, you have no basis for rebuking the idea that interpretation is a viably valid means of applying the provisions of the CONUS. I seriously doubt you feel "everything" that folks want one construed way or another needs an amendment.

So don't sit there trying to tell me that I've equivocated about the amendment and interpretative approaches to applying the ideas in the Constitution. I recognize that both modalities exist, both can "get the job done," and that people on both sides of any constitutional issue would sooner use the interpretive approach than the amendment one. I'm not sitting here playing some sort of rhetorical/political "game" about "amending and interpreting" the CONUS because I like some things the way they are and don't like other things they way they are right now. Truly, you play that "game" with someone else, anyone who'll put up with it, but I'm not here for that.

Hopefully that's unequivocal enough for you to understand now....

 

[dblack]

...

Hopefully that's unequivocal enough for you to understand now....

If you're making the 'living document' argument, and it sounds like you are, you are equivocating exactly as I described. You dismissed the need to defend the Constitution based on the fact that the it's amendable:

Frankly, I don't think the Constitution needs "defending" because:

• It's not going anywhere. We are nowhere near a point whereby, as a nation, we are of a mind to cast it off as the document that informs how our nation works.
• It's designed and meant to be modified. IIRC, it has been modified some 27 times, one such modification taking over 200 years to effect.

Changed and interpreted however and to whatever extent it happen, the Constitution will remain unassailable as exactly what it is, our supreme document of law. Nobody is trying to replace it as such.

That's a specious argument and completely ignores that fact that government can pass laws that are unconstitutional and the Court can re-interpret the Constitution to suit the ambitions of powerful leaders. We do, most emphatically, need to defend against that sort of change.

 

[320 Years of History]

...

Hopefully that's unequivocal enough for you to understand now....

If you're making the 'living document' argument, and it sounds like you are, you are equivocating exactly as I described. You dismissed the need to defend the Constitution based on the fact that the it's amendable:

Frankly, I don't think the Constitution needs "defending" because:

• It's not going anywhere. We are nowhere near a point whereby, as a nation, we are of a mind to cast it off as the document that informs how our nation works.
• It's designed and meant to be modified. IIRC, it has been modified some 27 times, one such modification taking over 200 years to effect.

Changed and interpreted however and to whatever extent it happen, the Constitution will remain unassailable as exactly what it is, our supreme document of law. Nobody is trying to replace it as such.

That's a specious argument and completely ignores that fact that government can pass laws that are unconstitutional and the Court can re-interpret the Constitution to suit the ambitions of powerful leaders. We do, most emphatically, need to defend against that sort of change.

Okay...fine...It's clear all you're arguing for is the continuance of policy and interpretations that suit you and the rejection of those that don't suit you. You're not actually aiming to engage on a discussion of jurisprudential theory. that's fine. I now understand the nature of what you want to discuss. It's just not the same nature of conversation I care to have. That'd fine. Have a good day.

 

[dblack]

Okay...fine...It's clear all you're arguing for is the continuance of policy and interpretations that suit you and the rejection of those that don't suit you.

It is? Since I haven't advocated for any specific policies, it's hard to see how you come to that conclusion.

You're not actually aiming to engage on a discussion of jurisprudential theory.

I'm arguing for why we need a president who will defend the Constitution.

that's fine. I now understand the nature of what you want to discuss. It's just not the same nature of conversation I care to have. That'd fine. Have a good day.

Heh. You too!

 

[320 Years of History]

It is? Since I haven't advocated for any specific policies, it's hard to see how you come to that conclusion.

You're right. I should have left out the word "policy."

 

[Fair&Balanced]

So, on the one hand we have a candidate who adds unknown articles to the constitution and on the other we have a candidate who completely ignores the entire document???