Who Says They Were 'Framers'?

[ScreamingEagle]

It is a living document. It is subject to change as we see fit.


For example, wouldn't it would be nice to amend the constitution on the subject of abortion? Wouldn't need judges to "interpret" the constitution and apply it to abortion for us peons.

Yes, it is "living" in that narrow sense. The Constitution itself provides for change and has very special rules to go by on that issue. However, it takes a whole lot to change or add to the Constitution. I doubt we will ever see an Amendment regarding abortion any time soon.

Liberals on the other hand take the meaning of "living" a big step further. They believe judges can bend and warp the meaning of the Constitution to fit their needs. They see and rule on things that do not even exist in our Constitution. They think "the rights" to abortion and gay marriage and to stomp out God in the public arena exist in our Constitution and they "interpret" in all kinds of rulings to justify those ends.

 

[William Joyce]

Screaming Eagle explains my point well... at least most get it.

LOL - "Make mine a collapsed skull in order to protect me from infanticide charges, please"!

Call Ben & Jerry's!

 

[Nienna]

Yes, it is "living" in that narrow sense. The Constitution itself provides for change and has very special rules to go by on that issue. However, it takes a whole lot to change or add to the Constitution. I doubt we will ever see an Amendment regarding abortion any time soon.

Liberals on the other hand take the meaning of "living" a big step further. They believe judges can bend and warp the meaning of the Constitution to fit their needs. They see and rule on things that do not even exist in our Constitution. They think "the rights" to abortion and gay marriage and to stomp out God in the public arena exist in our Constitution and they "interpret" in all kinds of rulings to justify those ends.

I think it's interesting that this concept of "interpreting" was first used on the Bible. Once people decided that the Bible didn't really mean what it said, the practice of "interpreting" increased.

 

[Mr. P]

...
Look in the Constitution. Where does it say that robbing a bank is illegal?
Like most righties, you are attempting to make an issue where none exist. We're sick of you policing our thoughts. .... Got any other thoughts you need to police today?

....Lib-speak? You're the one telling people which words to use.

:rotflmao: Does the term "Hate Crime" ring a faint bell in yer hollow liberal head?

 

[Hobbit]

Look in the Constitution. Where does it say that robbing a bank is illegal?
Like most righties, you are attempting to make an issue where none exist. We're sick of you policing our thoughts. .... Got any other thoughts you need to police today?

It is in the Constitution. Robbing a bank very directly deprives somebody of property (their money) without due process of law. It also involves the biggest handler of federal currency and a holder of federal insurance, meaning they're stealing from the federal government. In fact, the FDIC is probably the only reason bank robbery is a federal, rather than a state, crime.