What does the Constitution mean to you?

[IM2]

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

Actually it did, it's called the necessary and proper clause.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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

The Supreme Court is to be the GUARDIAN and interpreter of the constitution. This means that they are supposed understand what the original intent was and then guard to make sure that all disputes arising under the law meet the standards of that intent.

It doesn’t mean they can interpret it to change its meaning.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I agree. One major difference between the two major U.S. political parties is that Democrats want the Constitution to be as Kondor interprets it, i.e. flexible so that the (Democrat) controlled government can interpret it any way it wants. The Republicans/modern day conservatives/Patriots tend to be much more literalists but they too need reminding of that now and then when they want to ignore the letter and intent of the Constitution for their own purposes. Example (and intended ONLY as example): the calls for Biden to be impeached. Some Patriots want to interpret his destructive and incompetent bunglings of government as impeachable offenses. But according to the Constitution they are not any more than President Trump committed impeachable offenses.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Even then it's up to interpretation.

And I know what the right to bear arms means, the founders literally said it was synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty" and yet, the gun crowd refuse to acknowledge this at all.

You'll never get "what the founders wanted", especially as the founders wanted different things.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes, it is wrong.

Nope

 

[ThisIsMe]

Actually it did, it's called the necessary and proper clause.

The Congress shall have Power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That means that Congress has the power to make laws to fulfill the powers delegated to it by the cotus, that’s it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Supreme Court is to be the GUARDIAN and interpreter of the constitution. This means that they are supposed understand what the original intent was and then guard to make sure that all disputes arising under the law meet the standards of that intent.

It doesn’t mean they can interpret it to change its meaning.

Actually they can interpret it however they like. Nothing says they have to do it how the founding fathers wanted it.

The issue here is the US has the amendment process and the US is incapable of having a govt that can use the amendment process to have meaningful change.

So the US is stuck in a rut it'll never get out of.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Even then it's up to interpretation.

And I know what the right to bear arms means, the founders literally said it was synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty" and yet, the gun crowd refuse to acknowledge this at all.

You'll never get "what the founders wanted", especially as the founders wanted different things.

Doesn’t matter that the founders wanted different things, what matters is what they agreed to when they forged the document.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Doesn’t matter that the founders wanted different things, what matters is what they agreed to when they forged the document.

Maybe they agreed to things for different reasons.

Maybe they agreed to things because they fit the 1700s, we're not in the 1700s now. And now they simply wouldn't work as they did in the 1700s.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Actually they can interpret it however they like. Nothing says they have to do it how the founding fathers wanted it.

The issue here is the US has the amendment process and the US is incapable of having a govt that can use the amendment process to have meaningful change.

So the US is stuck in a rut it'll never get out of.

The gradual evolution of the Supreme Court into its role as "guardian of the Constitution" is known as the power of "judicial review." This means that the Court can review acts of Congress and acts of the state legislatures to make certain that they do not violate the provisions of the Constitution as designed by the founding Fathers.

Origin of Judicial Review in the United States

The gradual evolution of the Supreme Court into its role as "guardian of the Constitution" is known as the power of "judicial review." This means that the Court can review...

nccs.net

In other words, the Supreme Court is to measure all legislative acts against the will of the people as it was set forth in their original charter of liberty -- the Constitution of the United States.

It seems originalism was the intended mode of interpretation imparted to the Supreme Court.

 

[ThisIsMe]

A good constitution is like a full tank of gas,

It’ll cost you an arm and a leg to pay for it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Origin of Judicial Review in the United States

The gradual evolution of the Supreme Court into its role as "guardian of the Constitution" is known as the power of "judicial review." This means that the Court can review...

nccs.net

It seems originalism was the intended mode of interpretation imparted to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court was given the powers of the judiciary. What does this mean? We don't really know. It was so vague as to be half meaningless.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

The Founders, those who wrote and/or voted for and ratified the Constitution. The wealth of founding documents we have to know what the letter and intent of the Constitution was should be required education for every man, woman and child in the USA. Sometimes I think we need a constitutional amendment to make it mandatory that every citizen has to pass a simple test of the letter and intent of the Constitution in order to be allowed to vote.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The Supreme Court was given the powers of the judiciary. What does this mean? We don't really know. It was so vague as to be half meaningless.

Well, I seriously doubt the intent was for them to change the meaning of the cotus by having a fluid interpretation.

 

[MarcATL]

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?

The constitution talks about checking government, that's referring to between the branches.

It says nothing about it becoming "monstrous."

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, I seriously doubt the intent was for them to change the meaning of the cotus by having a fluid interpretation.

The amendment process meant that they intended for the government to fit the times

 

[Curried Goats]

Who determines what “good results” are? To you, that means one thing, to someone else, it means something different.

No shit. The person who would be determining what "good results" are to me would be me. You get to determine what constitutes "good results" to you. I figured that part was straight forward.

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.

Did the constitution seem like it left little impact on the lives of American slaves? I don't speak in pageantry or propaganda. You have hindsight as a weapon, there's no excuse for pretending the constitution didn't allow for a lot of tyranny.

Sure it did. The 13th amendment changed it.

After a whole ass war. Violence and threats of violence changed attitudes which changed laws. Change in laws don't come about just because.

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

Everyone is doing interpretation. Even supposed originialists.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The constitution talks about checking government, that's referring to between the branches.

It says nothing about it becoming "monstrous."

Exactly. Our government has become monstrous because it has moved so far away from the cotus original intent.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The amendment process meant that they intended for the government to fit the times

But that’s not interpretation. That’s change.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No shit. The person who would be determining what "good results" are to me would be me. You get to determine what constitutes "good results" to you. I figured that part was straight forward.

Did the constitution seem like it left little impact on the lives of American slaves? I don't speak in pageantry or propaganda. You have hindsight as a weapon, there's no excuse for pretending the constitution didn't allow for a lot of tyranny.

After a whole ass war. Violence and threats of violence changed attitudes which changed laws. Change in laws don't come about just because.

Everyone is doing interpretation. Even supposed originialists.

Yeah, times have changed, and they amended the cotus with the times. Yes, there were problems in the past and people got together and fixed those problems, and the cotus was fixed along with it

What is the alternative here? To have a cotus that doesn’t really mean anything, and we just kinda wing it?

My point in my post was that, the document as original intent was the only way it works, because it was the cement that constrained our government. Without that, our government can have unlimited power through the guise of “interpretation”.