What does the Constitution mean to you?

[Curried Goats]

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? You've stopped making arguments or sense. Times have changed? No shit. What kind of generic ass statement is that?

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

The constitution's meaning is imaginary and subjective. It means different things to different people. One alternative to our Constitution was British common law and as I pointed out in my opening they ended the practice of slavery before the US and didn't follow it up with segregation and a 100 years of Jim Crow.

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.

But it didn't constrain it from engaging in tyranny. The Founders were tyrant slavers.

Without that, our government can have unlimited power through the guise of “interpretation”.

With it they still exerted unlimited power over people they kept as property and slaves. The constitution isn't a magic force field. Nor are any set of laws. When bad people wield them you get bad results.

 

[ThisIsMe]

What? You've stopped making arguments or sense. Times have changed? No shit. What kind of generic ass statement is that?

The constitution's meaning is imaginary and subjective. It means different things to different people. One alternative to our Constitution was British common law and as I pointed out in my opening they ended the practice of slavery before the US and didn't follow it up with segregation and a 100 years of Jim Crow.

But it didn't constrain it from engaging in tyranny. The Founders were slavers.

With it they still exerted unlimited power over people they kept as property and slaves.

What? You've stopped making arguments or sense. Times have changed? No shit. What kind of generic ass statement is that?

The point was, we had some bad times, and we changed and our cotus changed with it. That doesn’t make the cotus a bad document, it means that there were flawed things that were put into it, and those things were removed. That doesn’t mean we just disregard it, we have to evolve it, but in the right way, through the amendment process, not just interpreting it Willy nilly.

The constitution's meaning is imaginary and subjective. It means different things to different people

I disagree. That is the definition of “interpretation.” I believe that, in its original intent, the meanings are unmovable. It’s that way so it keeps the government in check. A fluid definition doesn’t do that.

But it didn't constrain it from engaging in tyranny. The Founders were slavers

And that was changed. We eradicated the bad things from cotus and refined it to make it better, through the amendment process.

With it they still exerted unlimited power over people they kept as property and slaves.

And now?

 

[Curried Goats]

The point was, we had some bad times, and we changed and our cotus changed with it.

Is that unique to us? You just described all of human history, generally.

That doesn’t make the cotus a bad document, it means that there were flawed things that were put into it, and those things were removed.

That's your sentient. If your laws allow for slavery or martial rape (which wasn't outlawed in this county until the 80s and I mean the 1980s) then I think those are pretty shitty laws. You're free to disagree. That's the thing about opinions. We all have them.

That doesn’t mean we just disregard it, we have to evolve it, but in the right way, through the amendment process, not just interpreting it Willy nilly.

To me that's stupid. To me that places your respect of a document over the very real impact it has on people's lives. If we could of ended slavery without an Amendment by interpretation sooner than the 13th then I would of taken that because I care more about results than a piece of paper.

I disagree. That is the definition of “interpretation.” I believe that, in its original intent, the meanings are unmovable. It’s that way so it keeps the government in check. A fluid definition doesn’t do that.

Everyone does interpretation. Does the 4th amendment apply to your car? Cars didn't exist when they wrote it did they? Okay, so it says you should be secure with your papers and effects. Is it your car if you've financed it and the bank legally owns it?

Its all interpretation. If we weren't all interpretating the law then we wouldn't need courts and judges to arbitrate disputes and interprate how the laws apply. Instead it would act like computer code and we would act like computers blindly following a programed routine and there would be no disagreement. That isn't what happens though, is it?

And that was changed. We eradicated the bad things from cotus and refined it to make it better, through the amendment process.

And war. Don't forget the war that brought the slavers to heel. And also that change took longer than every other developed nation. That's not the striking endorsement for the constitution that you apparently think it is.

And now?

And now what? If you want to make real comparisons they have to be timely. The tyrant King and his kingdom that our Slaver Founders rebelled against for taxation without representation ended slavery before the rebel slaver Founders. Yes or no?

 

[MarcATL]

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

The constitution, for the most part, has been followed.

We need to bone up on holding the rich and powerful accountable though, including presidents. That's where we struggle with following what the Constitution says.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

The founding fathers wanted change. You want their true meaning.... but you don't want change, it's impossible

 

[ThisIsMe]

Is that unique to us? You just described all of human history, generally.

That's your sentient. If your laws allow for slavery or martial rape (which wasn't outlawed in this county until the 80s and I mean the 1980s) then I think those are pretty shitty laws. You're free to disagree. That's the thing about opinions. We all have them.

To me that's stupid. To me that places your respect of a document over the very real impact it has on people's lives. If we could of ended slavery without an Amendment by interpretation sooner than the 13th then I would of taken that because I care more about results than a piece of paper.

Everyone does interpretation. Does the 4th amendment apply to your car? Cars didn't exist when they wrote it did they? Okay, so it says you should be secure with your papers and effects. Is it your car if you've financed it and the bank legally owns it?

Its all interpretation. If we weren't all interpretating the law then we wouldn't need courts and judges to arbitrate disputes and interprate how the laws apply. Instead it would act like computer code and we would act like computers blindly following a programed routine and there would be no disagreement. That isn't what happens though, is it?

And war. Don't forget the war that brought the slavers to heel. And also that change took longer than every other developed nation. That's not the striking endorsement for the constitution that you apparently think it is.

And now what? If you want to make real comparisons they have to be timely. The tyrant King and his kingdom that our Slaver Founders rebelled against for taxation without representation ended slavery before the rebel slaver Founders. Yes or no?

So, your disdain for the cotus is all based on the fact that it didn’t act fast enough? Fair point, but it did get changes.

So, at the end of the day, to answer the question I asked. You are against the constitution, correct? You would prefer it was eradicated? And what would you put in its place? How would you keep the government in check?

 

[ThisIsMe]

The constitution, for the most part, has been followed.

We need to bone up on holding the rich and powerful accountable though, including presidents. That's where we struggle with following what the Constitution says.

Ok, that’s a fair point, but you’re talking about not adhering to the cotus. I’m just trying to ascertain what the cotus means to people. How the view the document. Men not following the cotus is not the fault of the cotus, it’s the fault of men.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The founding fathers wanted change. You want their true meaning.... but you don't want change, it's impossible

I don’t mind change, but there is a process for change.

Look, if you feel that interpretation is the answer, then why have the cotus at all? If we can just change it by simply interpreting it in different ways, then it’s effectively eradicated already.

So, why have any laws at all? I mean, it seems that if we don’t like the way a law reads…we can just interpret our way around it. Again, if that’s the case, then do we really even have “laws”?

 

[Curried Goats]

So, your disdain for the cotus is all based on the fact that it didn’t act fast enough? Fair point, but it did get changes.

So, at the end of the day, to answer the question I asked. You are against the constitution, correct? You would prefer it was eradicated? And what would you put in its place? How would you keep the government in check?

I never said I was against the constitution I just don't care about it more than I care about actual people and the impact of it on their lives.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don’t mind change, but there is a process for change.

Look, if you feel that interpretation is the answer, then why have the cotus at all? If we can just change it by simply interpreting it in different ways, then it’s effectively eradicated already.

So, why have any laws at all? I mean, it seems that if we don’t like the way a law reads…we can just interpret our way around it. Again, if that’s the case, then do we really even have “laws”?

Yes, a process for change that the founding fathers wrote into the constitution.

You want the meaning of the founding fathers. It was change. It was adapting to the times. Not interpreting things from 1789 to fit 2024.

 

[otto105]

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?

Not what trump and his sycophants think.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I never said I was against the constitution I just don't care about it more than I care about actual people and the impact of it on their lives.

But again, the way it’s supposed to work, it’s supposed to have a very small impact on our lives. Thats the point. If we were to stick to its ideas and not “interpret” it to mean what people with agendas want, the document would function as intended. Maximum liberty for the people, and a government that functions only to serve the people in a limited capacity.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes, a process for change that the founding fathers wrote into the constitution.

You want the meaning of the founding fathers. It was change. It was adapting to the times. Not interpreting things from 1789 to fit 2024.

They wrote it in such a way that it could be forward looking. It’s only the way it is now. BECAUSE we have messed up its meaning with various interpretations.

Not interpreting things from 1789 to fit 2024.

That exactly how it was supposed to work,until such times amendments were proposed. In its original form, the ideas they presented back then, would still work today (I’m talking about the rights it imparts and the restrictions it makes).

I don’t think the framers wrote it with the idea that future generations could change it just by changing the interpretation. If that was their intent, then why even have an amendment process? That would not be necessary on a document that’s “living and breathing”.

I think they intended for it to be fixed and unmovable , unless Congress or a convention decided it needed amending.

The way you all describe it, a court can simply just rule on what THEY think it says, with all that bias to shape their interpretation.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Not what trump and his sycophants think.

So, no real input then?

 

[frigidweirdo]

They wrote it in such a way that it could be forward looking. It’s only the way it is now. BECAUSE we have messed up its meaning with various interpretations.




That exactly how it was supposed to work,until such times amendments were proposed. In its original form, the ideas they presented back then, would still work today (I’m talking about the rights it imparts and the restrictions it makes).

I don’t think the framers wrote it with the idea that future generations could change it just by changing the interpretation. If that was their intent, then why even have an amendment process? That would not be necessary on a document that’s “living and breathing”.

I think they intended for it to be fixed and unmovable , unless Congress or a convention decided it needed amending.

The way you all describe it, a court can simply just rule on what THEY think it says, with all that bias to shape their interpretation.

You think the founding fathers were geniuses and what they wrote could stand for all time? Nonsense, even they knew it.

I'm not sure what you think anyone would achieve from having some "original interpretation", but it'd definitely be the US going back to the 1700s

 

[Curried Goats]

But again, the way it’s supposed to work, it’s supposed to have a very small impact on our lives. Thats the point.

No it isn't. That is propaganda, fantasy and make believe like that notion the Columbus discovered America. The constitution at its inception allowed for people to own other people as property. Would being owned as property seem like a small impact to your life?

If we were to stick to its ideas and not “interpret” it to mean what people with agendas want, the document would function as intended.

Aren't you doing interpretation here and not acknowledging that while the Founders spoke of liberty and freedom they did so from the perspective of aristocrats who didn't think non land owning whites (people without capital) or women should have those things. They were the ruling elites of their time and they didn't want to have to answer to another ruling elite across the pond so they created a system here where people with capital (capitalists) could exploit their land and their laborers for their own profit.

Maximum liberty for the people, and a government that functions only to serve the people in a limited capacity.

Okay, but what did that look like in reality? America at its inception was a slave state.

 

[JWBooth]

 

[otto105]

So, no real input then?

We tried your little government thing with the Articles of Confederation and it failed

We have amended the constitution how many times because dead people can’t foresee future issues.

You want a dead document so you can advocate for minority rule under the guise of calling our representative democracy a constitutional republic which would support your sides dictatorship.

 

[ThisIsMe]

We tried your little government thing with the Articles of Confederation and it failed

We have amended the constitution how many times because dead people can’t foresee future issues.

You want a dead document so you can advocate for minority rule under the guise of calling our representative democracy a constitutional republic which would support your sides dictatorship.

So your contention is the electoral college? Is that your beef? So you think that these giant liberal hubs like New York, LA, Austin..etc…should be able to always have their way, and smaller states are just supposed to never have a say?

We have amended the constitution how many times because dead people can’t foresee future issues.

That is so wrong. The cotus IS future proof, it’s just that, when we started going away from its actually purpose, and everyone started wanting something from it that it was never intended to give, that people started taking issue.

 

[otto105]

So your contention is the electoral college? Is that your beef? So you think that these giant liberal hubs like New York, LA, Austin..etc…should be able to always have their way, and smaller states are just supposed to never have a say?



That is so wrong. The cotus IS future proof, it’s just that, when we started going away from its actually purpose, and everyone started wanting something from it that it was never intended to give, that people started taking issue.

Like the supreme court’s ruling from last year that stated domestic abusers can’t be barred from own guns because no laws against besting your wife existed in 1779.

Right