What does the Constitution mean to you?

[ThisIsMe]

To me it is a piece of parchment. I don't find pieces of paper or parchment to be more important than good results. So long as we get to a good result it doesn't really matter to me how we got there. Take abortion rights. Those were just created by the court. The right to privacy never extended to the right to privately injure another party so that standard should of never been applied to extend a right to abortion. But women having the right to choose was a good result so I didn't give a shit.

Who determines what “good results” are? To you, that means one thing, to someone else, it means something different. The good thing about the cotus as is, is that in its original intent, it has minimal impact on everyone’s lives. Your state should have more impact on your life than the federal government.

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

A good constitution is like a full tank of gas,

 

[ThisIsMe]

It created a Government of the people, by the people and for the people

Yep, any opinion on what the cotus means to you? Or is that answer actually your real answer..you just don’t care?

 

[rightwinger]

Yep, any opinion on what the cotus means to you? Or is that answer actually your real answer..you just don’t care?

Abe Lincoln said it best

 

[ThisIsMe]

That's nothing but fairytale and propaganda. The constitution has been with this country the entire time and for most of that time Black people have lived under tyranny. That piece of paper didn't prevent that nor did it change that. Activists with violence and threats, physical, social and economic, changes attitudes which then changed the constitution. Let's not give a piece of paper written by slavers it's flowers before Civil rights heroes who put their bodies and lives on the line.

That piece of paper didn't prevent that nor did it change that.

Sure it did. The 13th amendment changed it.

Activists with violence and threats, physical, social and economic, changes attitudes which then changed the constitution

Precisely why the cotus shouldn’t be “up for interpretation”.

 

[ThisIsMe]

We know that Republicans don't give a damn what the Constitution says, they follow it when it's convenient and discard it when it's not.

Yeah, we’ve gotten so far from the original intent of the cotus that people get wishy washy on it, from both the left and the right. Wouldn’t it be great if we just stuck to its original intent and not let our government get to the monstrosity it is today?

 

[ThisIsMe]

For the first time in history, a nation was created that acknowledged it was there for……We the People

And at the end of the day, we ended up with a government for itself.

 

[ThisIsMe]

And some of these freaks seem to have forgotten that.

No, it’s the government that has forgotten that

 

[ThisIsMe]

An Anarchists view of having to live in a society that provides your health, welfare and security

You want the benefits but don’t want to pay for it

A realists view that the government was never supposed to provide your health and welfare. Security…that I can agree with.

 

[IM2]

100% PURE Dem projection.

No, truth about Republicans.

 

[IM2]

No, it’s the government that has forgotten that

Wrong.

 

[IM2]

A realists view that the government was never supposed to provide your health and welfare. Security…that I can agree with.

Actually that's a fools view.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Calling the US Constitution a living, breathing (adaptable, flexible) document is bull$hit? Yeah... sure it is...

That’s because it is. Sorry, but the “living breathing” constitution idea is not a good idea. I mean, should we say that ALL of our laws are living and breathing?

Judge: “why were you going 50mph over the speed limit?”

Driver: “because I think your laws are living and breathing and open for interpretation.”

I don’t think that works. We have laws that are steadfast for a reason. If you are allowed to change them just by reinterpreting them…are they even “laws”?

 

[IM2]

For the first time in history, a nation was created that acknowledged it was there for……We the People

Not really, but I understand your point.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I’ve been curious. It seems we have a very wide opinion of the constitution on this forum, which reflects what people generally thing of the cotus across America. It seems there are two prevailing opinions, one being its the law of the land, and the guiding document to constrain government and to keep everything in order, and the other being..it’s more of guide that can be interpreted as necessary to facilitate what we want, they ca this “living and breathing”.

Me, for example, I view the cotus like this:

When the cotus was created it was because the citizens at that time wanted a central body to handle things on a national scale, to help cover things that could help cover all of the states. These things were laid out by the delegated powers. They didn’t want a government that ruled every aspect of their lives so they listed everything they wanted the government to do, and and said all things beyond this are for the states and the people.

They never intended for Congress to be a full time job, which is why cotus says that they will meet on occasion to handle the matters at hand, which would have been all that was needed because the only matters at hand would have been the delegated powers.

I believe the cotus is the law of the land and that it is a restriction on the federal government. I believe the cotus should be interpreted by the intent of those who formed it. It should not be open to interpretation because many people can interpret things many different ways. Given the limited scope of the powers it delegates to the government, there really isn’t any need to interpret it anyway, it is very clear about what it wants the federal government to do and not do. It is only because we’ve gotten so far away from the original intent of the cotus that it needs interpretation anyway.

Should we determine that we need to change something in the document, it gave us a way to do so.

That’s a basic take on it. Your thoughts?

If you have to go by original intent, and not by interpretation, who interprets what is original intent?

 

[Kondor3]

Seems like a lot of people didn’t really want to answer the question. Most of them were just snide comments or bickering. I was just trying to get a sense of how people viewed the cotus, and what they thought its role and impact should be in society.

See, I think it is. To say that it’s living and breathing means its entire purpose and meaning can morph over time. This is bad because that means it can be molded to suit agendas based on who’s in power at any given time.

Yes, they did, and there is a process for that, not just someone interpreting it and re interpreting it over and over. Thats the problem, we’ve found a way to get around the amendment process by simply just changing its meaning by interpretation.

That only works if people stick to the original intent. Otherwise, it’s broke already.

One of the missions of the US Supreme Court IS to interpret the Constitution when disputes or issue arise, yes?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Wrong.

Not at all

 

[ThisIsMe]

If you have to go by original intent, and not by interpretation, who interprets what is original intent?

As written, federalist papers. The writings of the framers.

There are documents out there that explain these things. What is certainly not good is a moveable interpretation.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Actually that's a fools view.

Why? It’s the truth. The cotus never gave the federal government the power to do those things.

 

[IM2]

Not at all

Yes, it is wrong.