An old Constitutionalist

[Citizen]

Hello everyone,

I am politically independent, and believe the Constitution, not our judicial system, is the law of the land, and what the Constitution ment when adopted is what it means today.

I believe the only way our Constitution can be changed is thru the Amendment process, not thru interpertation by the courts or congress.

I believe that our government was established to protect the individual rights of its citizens, not to control their lives.

Although I believe in God, I feel closer to my creator sitting on a log in the forest than settin among others in a church.

I am a male over the age of retirement, married with children and grandchildren, and live in Tennessee.

This is about all the personal information I feel is worth giving out, so I will wish everyone a good day and a better tomorrow.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Welcome to the boards, I'm also a strict constitutionalist.

 

[Article 15]

Welcome to the board!

 

[Metternich]

God knows we need more conservatives on this board, and one from Tennesse no less!

I'm the Orange Country sort of conservative - used to being very Californian (I mean, extreme) so I just want to apologize for any of my eccentric, minarchist, comments before anything.

Obviously, welcome.

 

[Agnapostate]

But I've not yet seen anyone come here and say "I'm an anti-constitutionalist. What I support is the destruction of the United States Constitution."

 

[editec]

Hello everyone,

I am politically independent, and believe the Constitution, not our judicial system, is the law of the land, and what the Constitution ment when adopted is what it means today

.


Odd then that the framers created a court system designed to interpret what that consstitution actually meant then, don't you think?

I believe the only way our Constitution can be changed is thru the Amendment process, not thru interpertation by the courts or congress.

The constitution can only be CHANGED though amendment.

I believe that our government was established to protect the individual rights of its citizens, not to control their lives.

But NOT to protect the society itself? Odd that they bothered to mention creating a military, then, don't you think?

Although I believe in God, I feel closer to my creator sitting on a log in the forest than settin among others in a church.

You probably are.

I am a male over the age of retirement, married with children and grandchildren, and live in Tennessee.

A good life then, it sounds like.

This is about all the personal information I feel is worth giving out, so I will wish everyone a good day and a better tomorrow.

Thanks.

 

[jillian]

has anyone else noticed it's never lawyers, who've studied law, who run around saying they're "strict constructionist"? *shrug*

could be because there's no such thing.

as for the constitution and not caselaw being the law of the land, anyone who knows what a common law system is would find that silly.

welcome anyway

 

[editec]

has anyone else noticed it's never lawyers, who've studied law, who run around saying they're "strict constructionist"? *shrug*

Its a self-describing phrase which people think gives them an air of scholarly gravitas.

Basically it's a conceit.

could be because there's no such thing.

One man's strict interpretation is another man's incorrect interpretation, that's for damned sure.

as for the constitution and not caselaw being the law of the land, anyone who knows what a common law system is would find that silly.

welcome anyway

People tend to confuse the US constitution with the ten commandments.

They also think that declarative statements can have only one meaning.

I suspect most people who think that way don't get language very well, to be honest.

They believe that language has the certainty of math formulas.

I've also noted that they tend to imagine that words have only one meaning (theirs) and no nuances whatever.

What am I really trying to say nicely, but failing to do very well?

That people are idiots.

 

[jillian]

I so have nothing to add to that... lol...

stated perfectly.

 

[editec]

I so have nothing to add to that... lol...

stated perfectly.

Well that's OUR interpretation of it.

Others might interpret it differently.

But I do tend to be a strict constructionist of my own posts.

Of course I could be wrong.

My future interpretations of original meaning might beccome completely different than what I think they mean now.

Don't laugh...it's happened!

That foolish thoughts of editec of the past are never as smart as the genius of the editec of the present.

 

[jillian]

Well that's OUR interpretation of it.

Others might interpret it differently.

But I do tend to be a strict constructionist of my own posts.

Of course I could be wrong.

My future interpretations of original meaning might beccome completely different than what I think they mean now.

Don't laugh...it's happened!

That foolish thoughts of editec of the past are never as smart as the genius of the editec of the present.

LOL... I'm with ya on that... but as far as the constitution is concerned, people far wiser than I have been debating not just its meaning, but the applicaiton of it's words for hundreds of years.... sometimes disagreeing among themselves as in Plessy v Ferguson being overturned in favor of Brown v Bd of Ed....

but what it isn't... is a simplistic black and white document to be read the way a fundie reads his bible or koran or whatever of choice....

and the arrogance of people who presume to have more knowledge about it than the scholars who've made its study their life because some idiot like rush tells them they do, never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Metternich]

has anyone else noticed it's never lawyers, who've studied law, who run around saying they're "strict constructionist"? *shrug*

could be because there's no such thing.

I think you should stop talking, before you finally win that award you're clearly aiming for: The Most Annoying Ignorant.

WEPIN Store - Index to Anti-Federalist Papers

Albeit the "strict constitutionalist" phrasing is new, the basis for such thinking has been around for as long as the constitution; just because you haven't educated yourself, which is sad but I forgive you, doesn't mean it has not existed.

 

[Agnapostate]

Oh, she pegged that one a while ago.

 

[editec]

Jillian opines that:

and the arrogance of people who presume to have more knowledge about it than the scholars who've made its study their life because some idiot like rush tells them they do, never ceases to amaze me.

Amaze? As in:

Amaze \A*maze"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Amazed; p. pr. & vb. n.
Amazing.] [Pref. a- + maze.]
1. To bewilder; to stupefy; to bring into a maze. [Obs.]

A labyrinth to amaze his foes. --Shak.

or did you mean Amaze as in:

2. To confound, as by fear, wonder, extreme surprise; to
overwhelm with wonder; to astound; to astonish greatly.
``Amazing Europe with her wit.'' --Goldsmith.

And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not
this the son of David? --Matt. xii.
23.

Syn: To astonish; astound; confound; bewilder; perplex;
surprise.

source

I confess that some of the opinions I read here bewilder me because their inanity often astonishes me.

Guess I'm not quite the cynic I like to think I am.

 

[jillian]

has anyone else noticed it's never lawyers, who've studied law, who run around saying they're "strict constructionist"? *shrug*

could be because there's no such thing.

I think you should stop talking, before you finally win that award you're clearly aiming for: The Most Annoying Ignorant.

WEPIN Store - Index to Anti-Federalist Papers

Albeit the "strict constitutionalist" phrasing is new, the basis for such thinking has been around for as long as the constitution; just because you haven't educated yourself, which is sad but I forgive you, doesn't mean it has not existed.

the antifederalist papers?

lol... almost a source...

nutbar...

 

[jillian]

Oh, she pegged that one a while ago.

awwwwwwwwwww... what's athe matter pedophile? i made you cranky?

too bad, so sad, life is filled with pain.

 

[Practiree]

Sorry this might be off topic.

My cat is getting old and peeing everywhere. grrrr!

I need to remove cat pee odor from a carpet. Does anyone no a good product or household remedy to remove cat pee from carpet?

thanks in advance.

chris

 

[jillian]

Jillian opines that:

and the arrogance of people who presume to have more knowledge about it than the scholars who've made its study their life because some idiot like rush tells them they do, never ceases to amaze me.

Amaze? As in:

Amaze \A*maze"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Amazed; p. pr. & vb. n.
Amazing.] [Pref. a- + maze.]
1. To bewilder; to stupefy; to bring into a maze. [Obs.]

A labyrinth to amaze his foes. --Shak.

or did you mean Amaze as in:

2. To confound, as by fear, wonder, extreme surprise; to
overwhelm with wonder; to astound; to astonish greatly.
``Amazing Europe with her wit.'' --Goldsmith.

And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not
this the son of David? --Matt. xii.
23.

Syn: To astonish; astound; confound; bewilder; perplex;
surprise.

source

I confess that some of the opinions I read here bewilder me because their inanity often astonishes me.

Guess I'm not quite the cynic I like to think I am.

amazed as in i can't believe some of the bizarre and ignorant things i read on this board.

 

[RodISHI]

Sorry this might be off topic.

My cat is getting old and peeing everywhere. grrrr!

I need to remove cat pee odor from a carpet. Does anyone no a good product or household remedy to remove cat pee from carpet?

thanks in advance.

chris

Good old fashion vinegar should do the trick.

 

[Agnapostate]

awwwwwwwwwww... what's athe matter pedophile? i made you cranky?

too bad, so sad, life is filled with pain.

That seems to be your favorite subject, dear. And yet I bet your av provides you with some exciting material with which to stimulate your special spot, eh?