What's your brand of constitutional interpretation?

[Xenophon]

It is impossible to read the Constitution, and not interpret what you read. That goes for anything you read. To state that the Constitution should not be interpreted in any manner what so ever, is dangerous and naive.

You must be a racist!!

Dude! I haven't been called racist on the board yet. I am sure it is coming though. Sooner or later. I have been called an idiot twice today, because people didn't like the ugly truth. lol

The ugly truth is you are an idiot.

 

[Vast LWC]

But I guess he did call you "dangerous and naive" first...

 

[Xenophon]

But I guess he did call you "dangerous and naive" first...

Ah, you noticed that, did you.

 

[Vast LWC]

You must be a racist!!

Dude! I haven't been called racist on the board yet. I am sure it is coming though. Sooner or later. I have been called an idiot twice today, because people didn't like the ugly truth. lol

The ugly truth is you are an idiot.

And, what started as a nice point for debate once again degrades into a "your momma" type insult match.

Sigh.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I disagree.

No, you attempted to belittle me, when in fact you said something stupid.

This is the definition of interpet:


in⋅ter⋅pret  /ɪnˈtɜrprɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-tur-prit] Show IPA
Use interpret in a Sentence
–verb (used with object) 1. to give or provide the meaning of; explain; explicate; elucidate: to interpret the hidden meaning of a parable.
2. to construe or understand in a particular way: to interpret a reply as favorable.
3. to bring out the meaning of (a dramatic work, music, etc.) by performance or execution.
4. to perform or render (a song, role in a play, etc.) according to one's own understanding or sensitivity: The actor interpreted Lear as a weak, pitiful old man.

---------------------------

The words of the Constitution already provide their own meaning, nothing further is needed.

What you did was try to show us how cool you think you are by attempting to belittle what I said.

Do not attempt that again, next time I won't be so nice about it.

Count on it.

I did not belittle you. You called me an idiot moments ago. Did you forget that already? Shall I quote your own words back to you?

I know what the definition of interpret is. I don't have to look up the meaning on the internet and cut and paste it. You were wrong in calling me an idiot. You were wrong in stating that the Constitution should not be interpreted. Historical fact from the men who debated it and wrote state otherwise.

If you want to play keyboard commando, by trying to tell me what I should or should not attempt, you can play that childish game with someone else. I am not intimidated by you.

 

[goldcatt]

Humans interpret everything they read, hear, see and experience through their own lens. That's just the way it is. The Constitution is no exception. BGG is absolutely right.

Here's one example: The Common Defense. Simple enough. But what does the common defense mean to you? Military only? Military plus intelligence services? Both of those plus funding robust diplomacy? Domestic security as well as foreign? Law enforcement? Securing the borders? What you think is included in the power to provide for the Common Defense depends on your interpretation of what we need to be defended from and what is an effective means of doing so. And we could argue for hours over what you think vs. what I think but in the end we're both interpreting.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

But I guess he did call you "dangerous and naive" first...

Read my post again, I did not call the poster dangerous and naive. If you can't tell the difference, that is your problem.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Humans interpret everything they read, hear, see and experience through their own lens. That's just the way it is. The Constitution is no exception. BGG is absolutely right.

Here's one example: The Common Defense. Simple enough. But what does the common defense mean to you? Military only? Military plus intelligence services? Both of those plus funding robust diplomacy? Domestic security as well as foreign? Law enforcement? Securing the borders? What you think is included in the power to provide for the Common Defense depends on your interpretation of what we need to be defended from and what is an effective means of doing so. And we could argue for hours over what you think vs. what I think but in the end we're both interpreting.

Absolutely. Our founders left us the supporting founding documents for a reason. They left us those documents for posterity's sake. They also left those documents as a tool for us, when it comes to interpretation.

One of the key tenants of Constitutional Law, is legislative intent. When there is ambiguity in the law, the legislative intent is read, so as to ascertain the proper interpretation of the law at the time it was constructed and ratified. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers are a prime example.

 

[Oddball]

I disagree.

No, you attempted to belittle me, when in fact you said something stupid.

This is the definition of interpet:


in⋅ter⋅pret  /ɪnˈtɜrprɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-tur-prit] Show IPA
Use interpret in a Sentence
–verb (used with object) 1. to give or provide the meaning of; explain; explicate; elucidate: to interpret the hidden meaning of a parable.
2. to construe or understand in a particular way: to interpret a reply as favorable.
3. to bring out the meaning of (a dramatic work, music, etc.) by performance or execution.
4. to perform or render (a song, role in a play, etc.) according to one's own understanding or sensitivity: The actor interpreted Lear as a weak, pitiful old man.

---------------------------

The words of the Constitution already provide their own meaning, nothing further is needed.

What you did was try to show us how cool you think you are by attempting to belittle what I said.

Do not attempt that again, next time I won't be so nice about it.

Count on it.

I did not belittle you. You called me an idiot moments ago. Did you forget that already? Shall I quote your own words back to you?

He was being facetious.

Xerno agrees with you more than you know.

 

[Xenophon]

I did not belittle you.

That is right, you attempted it, and badly.

So listen up fuckhead, try it again I will get nasty.

And learn you aern't as bright as you think you are, and don't try to 'correct' people that aern't wrong.

Understand numbnuts, or do i have to make it simpler for you?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I did not belittle you.

That is right, you attempted it, and badly.

So listen up fuckhead, try it again I will get nasty.

And learn you aern't as bright as you think you are, and don't try to 'correct' people that aern't wrong.

Understand numbnuts, or do i have to make it simpler for you?

I am really scared mr. keyboard commando. Your eloquence of the english language has me so mezmerized, I am reaching for my thesaurus.

I don't know if I will be able to sleep tonight.

If you want to keep embarrassing yourself, have at it. I have better things to do.

 

[Oddball]

Better things to do than have people who basically agree to snipe at one another......

 

[Ringel05]

Better things to do than have people who basically agree to snipe at one another......

Maybe it's that time of the month?!

 

[goldcatt]

Better things to do than have people who basically agree to snipe at one another......

Maybe it's that time of the month?!

I believe, but do not know for sure with this being the internet and all, they are both in fact male?

Although I remember hearing somewhere once that men have a 24-hour hormonal cycle. So perhaps it's that time of the day.

This was such a good thread too. /sigh

 

[Ringel05]

Better things to do than have people who basically agree to snipe at one another......

Maybe it's that time of the month?!

I believe, but do not know for sure with this being the internet and all, they are both in fact male?

Although I remember hearing somewhere once that men have a 24-hour hormonal cycle. So perhaps it's that time of the day.

This was such a good thread too. /sigh

Of course you don't have to be only female to experience it, just married.
I pray my wife never reads this.

 

[Xenophon]

I am really scared mr. keyboard commando. Your eloquence of the english language has me so mezmerized, I am reaching for my thesaurus.

I don't know if I will be able to sleep tonight.

If you want to keep embarrassing yourself, have at it. I have better things to do.

The only one that would be embarrissed is whomever invited an egotistical fucktard like you here.

Anything else you'd care to correct us on genius?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I find it interesting that traditionally religious types, Conservatives and such, are in more favor of a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

However, I am also in favor of a literal interpretation of the Consititution, strangely enough, I just have a different interpretation of what it "literally" says.

For instance, and what probably led directly to this thread, when I see the term "Provide for the General Welfare" I believe it means, literally, just that. Provide for the general welfare.

I happen to think that Health Care is included in the category of General Welfare, just like Machine Guns are included in the category "Provide for the Common Defense".

That is a literal interpretation, just not one that some people happen to agree with.

Now, the bible, on the other hand, is very open to non-literal interpretation, IMO.

Yet that's not how those who wrote the Constitution interpreted the general welfare clause. If it had been there would have been no point to having the Constitution at all as that clause would give unlimited power to the federal government.

 

[goldcatt]

Maybe it's that time of the month?!

I believe, but do not know for sure with this being the internet and all, they are both in fact male?

Although I remember hearing somewhere once that men have a 24-hour hormonal cycle. So perhaps it's that time of the day.

This was such a good thread too. /sigh

Of course you don't have to be only female to experience it, just married.
I pray my wife never reads this.

You're a dead man.

 

[goldcatt]

I find it interesting that traditionally religious types, Conservatives and such, are in more favor of a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

However, I am also in favor of a literal interpretation of the Consititution, strangely enough, I just have a different interpretation of what it "literally" says.

For instance, and what probably led directly to this thread, when I see the term "Provide for the General Welfare" I believe it means, literally, just that. Provide for the general welfare.

I happen to think that Health Care is included in the category of General Welfare, just like Machine Guns are included in the category "Provide for the Common Defense".

That is a literal interpretation, just not one that some people happen to agree with.

Now, the bible, on the other hand, is very open to non-literal interpretation, IMO.

Yet that's not how those who wrote the Constitution interpreted the general welfare clause. If it had been there would have been no point to having the Constitution at all as that clause would give unlimited power to the federal government.

I've seen this argument. I tend to agree to that point. However, it is also not completely meaningless. The Preamble is a sort of mission statement even if it does not grant the powers listed there. Not binding, but embodying the spirit of what the letter spells out.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I find it interesting that traditionally religious types, Conservatives and such, are in more favor of a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

However, I am also in favor of a literal interpretation of the Consititution, strangely enough, I just have a different interpretation of what it "literally" says.

For instance, and what probably led directly to this thread, when I see the term "Provide for the General Welfare" I believe it means, literally, just that. Provide for the general welfare.

I happen to think that Health Care is included in the category of General Welfare, just like Machine Guns are included in the category "Provide for the Common Defense".

That is a literal interpretation, just not one that some people happen to agree with.

Now, the bible, on the other hand, is very open to non-literal interpretation, IMO.

Yet that's not how those who wrote the Constitution interpreted the general welfare clause. If it had been there would have been no point to having the Constitution at all as that clause would give unlimited power to the federal government.

I've seen this argument. I tend to agree to that point. However, it is also not completely meaningless. The Preamble is a sort of mission statement even if it does not grant the powers listed there. Not binding, but embodying the spirit of what the letter spells out.

Yes, it gives the spirit of the document. The document then proceeds to explicitly spell out the powers the federal government has to provide for the general welfare.