A Majority of people polled want the Supremes to rule based upon what the Constitution means today.

[JakeStarkey]

The problem is that the context has changed, and the actual words do not apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state. We have a secure free state, guaranteed by a permanent standing army. This something the Founding Father never anticipated.

Therefore, it would not be entirely specious for the USSC to declare the entire Second Amendment void, because it no longer applies.

Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon.

bullshit. times msy change its true. people do not.

leave it alone.

People do change, of course.

 

[Seawytch]

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

By today's standards, the FFs are the barbarous ancestors. Thomas Jefferson had the foresight to know that.

 

[SavannahMann]

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

By today's standards, the FFs are the barbarous ancestors. Thomas Jefferson had the foresight to know that.

The founders recognized that. It is why the Constitution has the ability to be amended. The founders did not intend it to be gospel, and gave us the mechanism to change the highest law of the land. Courts are responsible for interpreting the principles of the Constitution as it applies to real life. They aren’t supposed to change it or amend it by judicial decision.

 

[boedicca]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

For years now people like myself have been pointing out that the asinine arguments of the anti-gunners that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard, what they see as the “Militia” is wrong. We have been pointing out with links, and articles, that the Militia at the time the Constitution was Ratified, was every single person. Ok, actually it was every able bodied free man. But that is because Women and Slaves were not considered for the right. A belief fixed by Amendments later on.

Well the good news is that people are obviously learning. The bad news, they still don’t want those rules to apply to Supreme Court Decisions. Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working. Those of us who keep trying to educate our fellow citizens should feel gratified that our efforts are showing results. Now, if we could only explain to them that the words used were an effort to capture an ideal, a principle intended to guide us, then we would be better off.

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution

He was right. The Consititution sets out things that may never be taken from someone, things that they may never endure at the hands of their Government. The Government may not abridge your Freedom of Speech, it may not prevent you form worshipping in your own way. Everything in there are things it can’t do.

The Constitution was never intended to limit the citizenry, but to limit the power of the Government. Those are the Negative Rights that Obama talked about. The Government can’t just walk in and search your home, and go through your stuff on a whim. It must have a Warrant.

Every time the Supreme Court rules that there are exceptions, those negative rights get weaker. Those exceptions should be in the most extreme circumstances, never the standard by which we remove even more of your rights.

I feel good that people are learning the truth about the history of the Constitution. Now it is time to start explaining why the Constitution is set up the way it is. If you want a more modern reading of a right, then we have a process for that. It is called an Amendment. Those are very hard to get because they should be. It should be hard to place restrictions on the people. It should be hard to take away their rights. It should be damned near impossible to remove a right from an individual in this nation.

More people are learning what, now it is time to teach them why.

What a tub of fertilizer.

Seriously. The Constitution means exactly the same things in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE that it meant when written. Changing the meaning of words to change the intent is a game that the Progs have played for decades.

No thank you.

The intent was a compromise, something you would understand if you had studied US History.

I said nothing that contradicted that, bub.

Try keeping up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

By today's standards, the FFs are the barbarous ancestors. Thomas Jefferson had the foresight to know that.

The founders recognized that. It is why the Constitution has the ability to be amended. The founders did not intend it to be gospel, and gave us the mechanism to change the highest law of the land. Courts are responsible for interpreting the principles of the Constitution as it applies to real life. They aren’t supposed to change it or amend it by judicial decision.

That argument died with Marbury, and, it will never be resurrected.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

For years now people like myself have been pointing out that the asinine arguments of the anti-gunners that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard, what they see as the “Militia” is wrong. We have been pointing out with links, and articles, that the Militia at the time the Constitution was Ratified, was every single person. Ok, actually it was every able bodied free man. But that is because Women and Slaves were not considered for the right. A belief fixed by Amendments later on.

Well the good news is that people are obviously learning. The bad news, they still don’t want those rules to apply to Supreme Court Decisions. Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working. Those of us who keep trying to educate our fellow citizens should feel gratified that our efforts are showing results. Now, if we could only explain to them that the words used were an effort to capture an ideal, a principle intended to guide us, then we would be better off.

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution

He was right. The Consititution sets out things that may never be taken from someone, things that they may never endure at the hands of their Government. The Government may not abridge your Freedom of Speech, it may not prevent you form worshipping in your own way. Everything in there are things it can’t do.

The Constitution was never intended to limit the citizenry, but to limit the power of the Government. Those are the Negative Rights that Obama talked about. The Government can’t just walk in and search your home, and go through your stuff on a whim. It must have a Warrant.

Every time the Supreme Court rules that there are exceptions, those negative rights get weaker. Those exceptions should be in the most extreme circumstances, never the standard by which we remove even more of your rights.

I feel good that people are learning the truth about the history of the Constitution. Now it is time to start explaining why the Constitution is set up the way it is. If you want a more modern reading of a right, then we have a process for that. It is called an Amendment. Those are very hard to get because they should be. It should be hard to place restrictions on the people. It should be hard to take away their rights. It should be damned near impossible to remove a right from an individual in this nation.

More people are learning what, now it is time to teach them why.

Thanks for the link..very informative. I don't agree with your interpretation of the results though. It seems to me..that what people are saying they are in favor of is the 'living document' point of view. I agree with this. I don't think the Founder's points of view, from the 18th century...should rule absolute in our 21st century world. I agree that the ideals stand..and should continue to be respected. Even as they are reinterpreted in our modern context. By the SCOTUS.

I think that those who are advocates of the rigid Constitutional model are on the wrong side of both history and legal precedent.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Living document vs originalism

 

[2aguy]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

For years now people like myself have been pointing out that the asinine arguments of the anti-gunners that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard, what they see as the “Militia” is wrong. We have been pointing out with links, and articles, that the Militia at the time the Constitution was Ratified, was every single person. Ok, actually it was every able bodied free man. But that is because Women and Slaves were not considered for the right. A belief fixed by Amendments later on.

Well the good news is that people are obviously learning. The bad news, they still don’t want those rules to apply to Supreme Court Decisions. Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working. Those of us who keep trying to educate our fellow citizens should feel gratified that our efforts are showing results. Now, if we could only explain to them that the words used were an effort to capture an ideal, a principle intended to guide us, then we would be better off.

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution

He was right. The Consititution sets out things that may never be taken from someone, things that they may never endure at the hands of their Government. The Government may not abridge your Freedom of Speech, it may not prevent you form worshipping in your own way. Everything in there are things it can’t do.

The Constitution was never intended to limit the citizenry, but to limit the power of the Government. Those are the Negative Rights that Obama talked about. The Government can’t just walk in and search your home, and go through your stuff on a whim. It must have a Warrant.

Every time the Supreme Court rules that there are exceptions, those negative rights get weaker. Those exceptions should be in the most extreme circumstances, never the standard by which we remove even more of your rights.

I feel good that people are learning the truth about the history of the Constitution. Now it is time to start explaining why the Constitution is set up the way it is. If you want a more modern reading of a right, then we have a process for that. It is called an Amendment. Those are very hard to get because they should be. It should be hard to place restrictions on the people. It should be hard to take away their rights. It should be damned near impossible to remove a right from an individual in this nation.

More people are learning what, now it is time to teach them why.

Thanks for the link..very informative. I don't agree with your interpretation of the results though. It seems to me..that what people are saying they are in favor of is the 'living document' point of view. I agree with this. I don't think the Founder's points of view, from the 18th century...should rule absolute in our 21st century world. I agree that the ideals stand..and should continue to be respected. Even as they are reinterpreted in our modern context. By the SCOTUS.

I think that those who are advocates of the rigid Constitutional model are on the wrong side of both history and legal precedent.

There are certain Principals that exist outside and above the Constitution....and no ruling by 5 politically appointed lawyers can change that wether the Constitution is living or Original.......and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Freedom of religion and the Press and the other Rights that we have can't be voted away....

 

[JakeStarkey]

You can have your opinion, but amendments and SCOTUS have the final word.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

By today's standards, the FFs are the barbarous ancestors. Thomas Jefferson had the foresight to know that.

The founders recognized that. It is why the Constitution has the ability to be amended. The founders did not intend it to be gospel, and gave us the mechanism to change the highest law of the land. Courts are responsible for interpreting the principles of the Constitution as it applies to real life. They aren’t supposed to change it or amend it by judicial decision.

That argument died with Marbury, and, it will never be resurrected.

It did not "die" with Marbury. It was stunted, and anything can be resurrected.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Living document vs originalism

Living document is a completely contrived term by anti-constitution radicals.

 

[postman]

The founders recognized that. It is why the Constitution has the ability to be amended. The founders did not intend it to be gospel, and gave us the mechanism to change the highest law of the land. Courts are responsible for interpreting the principles of the Constitution as it applies to real life. They aren’t supposed to change it or amend it by judicial decision.

That argument died with Marbury, and, it will never be resurrected.

It did not "die" with Marbury. It was stunted, and anything can be resurrected.

The idea of a living constitution is to account for changes which could not be foreseen. Such as the "press" going from being a physical device with moveable type, needing a large organization to run it, to being a computer program on a cell phone. With reporters going from people working for a large news organization with printing presses capable to putting out thousands of copies, to somebody at their computer able to post an article which instead of being bought by thousands, can be viewed by millions.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

For years now people like myself have been pointing out that the asinine arguments of the anti-gunners that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard, what they see as the “Militia” is wrong. We have been pointing out with links, and articles, that the Militia at the time the Constitution was Ratified, was every single person. Ok, actually it was every able bodied free man. But that is because Women and Slaves were not considered for the right. A belief fixed by Amendments later on.

Well the good news is that people are obviously learning. The bad news, they still don’t want those rules to apply to Supreme Court Decisions. Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working. Those of us who keep trying to educate our fellow citizens should feel gratified that our efforts are showing results. Now, if we could only explain to them that the words used were an effort to capture an ideal, a principle intended to guide us, then we would be better off.

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution

He was right. The Consititution sets out things that may never be taken from someone, things that they may never endure at the hands of their Government. The Government may not abridge your Freedom of Speech, it may not prevent you form worshipping in your own way. Everything in there are things it can’t do.

The Constitution was never intended to limit the citizenry, but to limit the power of the Government. Those are the Negative Rights that Obama talked about. The Government can’t just walk in and search your home, and go through your stuff on a whim. It must have a Warrant.

Every time the Supreme Court rules that there are exceptions, those negative rights get weaker. Those exceptions should be in the most extreme circumstances, never the standard by which we remove even more of your rights.

I feel good that people are learning the truth about the history of the Constitution. Now it is time to start explaining why the Constitution is set up the way it is. If you want a more modern reading of a right, then we have a process for that. It is called an Amendment. Those are very hard to get because they should be. It should be hard to place restrictions on the people. It should be hard to take away their rights. It should be damned near impossible to remove a right from an individual in this nation.

More people are learning what, now it is time to teach them why.

Thanks for the link..very informative. I don't agree with your interpretation of the results though. It seems to me..that what people are saying they are in favor of is the 'living document' point of view. I agree with this. I don't think the Founder's points of view, from the 18th century...should rule absolute in our 21st century world. I agree that the ideals stand..and should continue to be respected. Even as they are reinterpreted in our modern context. By the SCOTUS.

I think that those who are advocates of the rigid Constitutional model are on the wrong side of both history and legal precedent.

Too funny. Neither case law nor precedent can legally alter the Constitution. Only the processes mandated by it can.

 

[postman]

Living document vs originalism

Living document also saves a lot of amendments. Imagine if every time they came up with a new type of printing press, they had to amend the constitution to update the meaning of "press"

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Living document vs originalism

Living document is a completely contrived term by anti-constitution radicals.

So YOU say....most of us believe otherwise. Nice try though.

Well..Jefferson WAS a Radical:

One could also reasonably argue that Thomas Jefferson himself presented the idea of evolving Constitutional interpretations. In an 1816 letter to Samuel Kercheval, excerpted on Panel 4 of the Jefferson Memorial, he wrote

"But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. [16]

Then there's Oliver W. Holmes--another raging Radical:

Although "the living Constitution" is itself a characterization rather than a specific method of interpretation, the phrase is associated with various non-originalist theories of interpretation. The most common association is with judicial pragmatism.[17][18] In the course of his judgment in Missouri v. Holland 252 U.S. 416 (1920), Holmes made this remark on the nature of the constitution.

With regard to that we may add that when we are dealing with words that also are a constituent act, like the Constitution of the United States, we must realize that they have called into life a being the development of which could not have been foreseen completely by the most gifted of its begetters. It was enough for them to realize or to hope that they had created an organism; it has taken a century and has cost their successors much sweat and blood to prove that they created a nation. The case before us must be considered in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago. The treaty in question does not contravene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution. The only question is whether [252 U.S. 416, 434] it is forbidden by some invisible radiation from the general terms of the Tenth Amendment. We must consider what this country has become in deciding what that amendment has reserved.

According to the pragmatist view, the Constitution should be seen as evolving over time as a matter of social necessity. Looking solely to original meaning, when the original intent was largely to permit many practices universally condemned today, is under this view cause to reject pure originalism out of hand.

This general view has been expressed by Judge Richard Posner:

A constitution that did not invalidate so offensive, oppressive, probably undemocratic, and sectarian law [as the Connecticut law banning contraceptives] would stand revealed as containing major gaps. Maybe that is the nature of our, or perhaps any, written Constitution; but yet, perhaps the courts are authorized to plug at least the most glaring gaps. Does anyone really believe, in his heart of hearts, that the Constitution should be interpreted so literally as to authorize every conceivable law that would not violate a specific constitutional clause? This would mean that a state could require everyone to marry, or to have intercourse at least once a month, or it could take away every couple's second child and place it in a foster home.... We find it reassuring to think that the courts stand between us and legislative tyranny even if a particular form of tyranny was not foreseen and expressly forbidden by framers of the Constitution.[19]

This pragmatist objection is central to the idea that the Constitution should be seen as a living document. Under this view, for example, constitutional requirements of "equal rights" should be read with regard to current standards of equality, and not those of decades or centuries ago, because the alternative would be unacceptable.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

For years now people like myself have been pointing out that the asinine arguments of the anti-gunners that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard, what they see as the “Militia” is wrong. We have been pointing out with links, and articles, that the Militia at the time the Constitution was Ratified, was every single person. Ok, actually it was every able bodied free man. But that is because Women and Slaves were not considered for the right. A belief fixed by Amendments later on.

Well the good news is that people are obviously learning. The bad news, they still don’t want those rules to apply to Supreme Court Decisions. Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working. Those of us who keep trying to educate our fellow citizens should feel gratified that our efforts are showing results. Now, if we could only explain to them that the words used were an effort to capture an ideal, a principle intended to guide us, then we would be better off.

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution

He was right. The Consititution sets out things that may never be taken from someone, things that they may never endure at the hands of their Government. The Government may not abridge your Freedom of Speech, it may not prevent you form worshipping in your own way. Everything in there are things it can’t do.

The Constitution was never intended to limit the citizenry, but to limit the power of the Government. Those are the Negative Rights that Obama talked about. The Government can’t just walk in and search your home, and go through your stuff on a whim. It must have a Warrant.

Every time the Supreme Court rules that there are exceptions, those negative rights get weaker. Those exceptions should be in the most extreme circumstances, never the standard by which we remove even more of your rights.

I feel good that people are learning the truth about the history of the Constitution. Now it is time to start explaining why the Constitution is set up the way it is. If you want a more modern reading of a right, then we have a process for that. It is called an Amendment. Those are very hard to get because they should be. It should be hard to place restrictions on the people. It should be hard to take away their rights. It should be damned near impossible to remove a right from an individual in this nation.

More people are learning what, now it is time to teach them why.

Thanks for the link..very informative. I don't agree with your interpretation of the results though. It seems to me..that what people are saying they are in favor of is the 'living document' point of view. I agree with this. I don't think the Founder's points of view, from the 18th century...should rule absolute in our 21st century world. I agree that the ideals stand..and should continue to be respected. Even as they are reinterpreted in our modern context. By the SCOTUS.

I think that those who are advocates of the rigid Constitutional model are on the wrong side of both history and legal precedent.

Too funny. Neither case law nor precedent can legally alter the Constitution. Only the processes mandated by it can.

So YOU say....of course, we can, and do, change the interpretation of the Constitution without changing the words. Obviously. Legally. Regardless of what armchair Constitutionalists may think or feel.

Reality is.

 

[postman]

Too funny. Neither case law nor precedent can legally alter the Constitution. Only the processes mandated by it can.

If that were the case, they would have to amend the constitution every few years, to keep up with technology. And with the high bar set to make amendments, that would tie up the country making constant corrections. Take the simple case of the 4th amendment guarding against unreasonable search and seizures. Back in the 1700's a search of communications had to be a physical search, such as opening a letter. By the 1800's one could make a physical search of a telegraph message from hundreds of miles away. By the 1900's the search didn't even need to be local, it could be done from the other side of the world. By the 2000's a search could be done not of one person, but of millions, without leaving any physical trace.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The problem is that the context has changed, and the actual words do not apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state. We have a secure free state, guaranteed by a permanent standing army. This something the Founding Father never anticipated.

Therefore, it would not be entirely specious for the USSC to declare the entire Second Amendment void, because it no longer applies.

Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon.

Well regulated means "well armed."

A well armed populace is more critical now than any time in the past to a free state, what with open traitors like Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe perverting law enforcement.

The dream that the SCOTUS would hold the bill of rights "unconstitutional" was the Stalinist dream that was dashed with the election of Donald Trump.

This fantasy of a rogue court putting an end to civil rights is the wet dream of the democrats, but the appointment of Neil Gorsuch ends that fantasy for a generation.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

For years now people like myself have been pointing out that the asinine arguments of the anti-gunners that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard, what they see as the “Militia” is wrong. We have been pointing out with links, and articles, that the Militia at the time the Constitution was Ratified, was every single person. Ok, actually it was every able bodied free man. But that is because Women and Slaves were not considered for the right. A belief fixed by Amendments later on.

Well the good news is that people are obviously learning. The bad news, they still don’t want those rules to apply to Supreme Court Decisions. Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working. Those of us who keep trying to educate our fellow citizens should feel gratified that our efforts are showing results. Now, if we could only explain to them that the words used were an effort to capture an ideal, a principle intended to guide us, then we would be better off.

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution

He was right. The Consititution sets out things that may never be taken from someone, things that they may never endure at the hands of their Government. The Government may not abridge your Freedom of Speech, it may not prevent you form worshipping in your own way. Everything in there are things it can’t do.

The Constitution was never intended to limit the citizenry, but to limit the power of the Government. Those are the Negative Rights that Obama talked about. The Government can’t just walk in and search your home, and go through your stuff on a whim. It must have a Warrant.

Every time the Supreme Court rules that there are exceptions, those negative rights get weaker. Those exceptions should be in the most extreme circumstances, never the standard by which we remove even more of your rights.

I feel good that people are learning the truth about the history of the Constitution. Now it is time to start explaining why the Constitution is set up the way it is. If you want a more modern reading of a right, then we have a process for that. It is called an Amendment. Those are very hard to get because they should be. It should be hard to place restrictions on the people. It should be hard to take away their rights. It should be damned near impossible to remove a right from an individual in this nation.

More people are learning what, now it is time to teach them why.

Thanks for the link..very informative. I don't agree with your interpretation of the results though. It seems to me..that what people are saying they are in favor of is the 'living document' point of view. I agree with this. I don't think the Founder's points of view, from the 18th century...should rule absolute in our 21st century world. I agree that the ideals stand..and should continue to be respected. Even as they are reinterpreted in our modern context. By the SCOTUS.

I think that those who are advocates of the rigid Constitutional model are on the wrong side of both history and legal precedent.

Too funny. Neither case law nor precedent can legally alter the Constitution. Only the processes mandated by it can.

So YOU say....of course, we can, and do, change the interpretation of the Constitution without changing the words. Obviously. Legally. Regardless of what armchair Constitutionalists may think or feel.

Reality is.

You're nuts. So, you are OK with a judge determining that the constitution in 2018 should mean "X"?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

For years now people like myself have been pointing out that the asinine arguments of the anti-gunners that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard, what they see as the “Militia” is wrong. We have been pointing out with links, and articles, that the Militia at the time the Constitution was Ratified, was every single person. Ok, actually it was every able bodied free man. But that is because Women and Slaves were not considered for the right. A belief fixed by Amendments later on.

Well the good news is that people are obviously learning. The bad news, they still don’t want those rules to apply to Supreme Court Decisions. Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working. Those of us who keep trying to educate our fellow citizens should feel gratified that our efforts are showing results. Now, if we could only explain to them that the words used were an effort to capture an ideal, a principle intended to guide us, then we would be better off.

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution

He was right. The Consititution sets out things that may never be taken from someone, things that they may never endure at the hands of their Government. The Government may not abridge your Freedom of Speech, it may not prevent you form worshipping in your own way. Everything in there are things it can’t do.

The Constitution was never intended to limit the citizenry, but to limit the power of the Government. Those are the Negative Rights that Obama talked about. The Government can’t just walk in and search your home, and go through your stuff on a whim. It must have a Warrant.

Every time the Supreme Court rules that there are exceptions, those negative rights get weaker. Those exceptions should be in the most extreme circumstances, never the standard by which we remove even more of your rights.

I feel good that people are learning the truth about the history of the Constitution. Now it is time to start explaining why the Constitution is set up the way it is. If you want a more modern reading of a right, then we have a process for that. It is called an Amendment. Those are very hard to get because they should be. It should be hard to place restrictions on the people. It should be hard to take away their rights. It should be damned near impossible to remove a right from an individual in this nation.

More people are learning what, now it is time to teach them why.

Thanks for the link..very informative. I don't agree with your interpretation of the results though. It seems to me..that what people are saying they are in favor of is the 'living document' point of view. I agree with this. I don't think the Founder's points of view, from the 18th century...should rule absolute in our 21st century world. I agree that the ideals stand..and should continue to be respected. Even as they are reinterpreted in our modern context. By the SCOTUS.

I think that those who are advocates of the rigid Constitutional model are on the wrong side of both history and legal precedent.

Too funny. Neither case law nor precedent can legally alter the Constitution. Only the processes mandated by it can.

So YOU say....of course, we can, and do, change the interpretation of the Constitution without changing the words. Obviously. Legally. Regardless of what armchair Constitutionalists may think or feel.

Reality is.

You're nuts. So, you are OK with a judge determining that the constitution in 2018 should mean "X"?

Whether or not I'm 'OK' with it...it is the reality every time the SCOTUS rules.