Let's Start The National Debate

[Zhukov]

Now that Miers is out of the picture, maybe we can now have a long overdue national debate. So why not start it here?


I believe the Constitution should be applied precisely in the manner intended by those who wrote it, and understood in precisely the manner of those who ratified it.

I do not believe the Constitution should be read through a prism of contemporary attitudes.

I do not believe the Constitution is a ‘living document’.

I believe that if one does believe these last two points, then that individual believes they are so much wiser (or perhaps just more important) than the Founder’s that they can therefore bypass, by judicial fiat, the amendment process the Founder’s wrote into the Constitution (a.k.a. judicial activism).

So. Who disagrees? And why?

 

[Annie]

Hmmm, I agree with the concept of using the 'intent' of the Framers, however the powers of the constitution are lacking in specifics for the very reason that they 'expected' that times, technology, etc would change. It has to be flexible enough to do so, otherwise you are in the position of the EU/US state constitutions with too many specifics and the need to throw them out and start over again and again.

With the Federalist and Anti-federalists papers, private correspondences, Madison's notes, etc., we have a pretty good idea of what many of the Framers intended. Those should be used, not 'international rulings'.

The amendment process is purposely difficult to prevent too much change too quickly, that is a good thing.

 

[dmp]

I DO tend to agree w/ Zhukov

I DO Believe the children are the future. Teach them well and let them lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess inside.

 

[manu1959]

i agree.....the intent of the document is paramount in applying it to current issues......

 

[Mr. P]

Hey, I know a Magistrate Judge! Well hell, at least she's a Judge already, and doesn't know W.
Oh, and she's far from liberal too.

 

[Zhukov]

Hmmm, I agree with the concept of using the 'intent' of the Framers, however the powers of the constitution are lacking in specifics for the very reason that they 'expected' that times, technology, etc would change.

The only real flexibility I see in it is the aptly named elastic clause. But other than that it is pretty clear in my opinion. Besides that clause, I believe there is no 'flexibility' outside the ammendment process and I'd add that even the 'elastic' clause ought to be interpreted much more conservatively.

I DO tend to agree w/ Zhukov

Me too!.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I view the Constitution the way Kathianne does. In my opinion, its flexibility is the amendment process, which was purposely made difficult by the Founding Fathers.

 

[Zhukov]

So no libs out there want to tell me the Supreme Court should 'protect the little guy'? Not one of you want to tell me how Justices should rule on fairness and what is right? Shame.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

So no libs out there want to tell me the Supreme Court should 'protect the little guy'? Not one of you want to tell me how Justices should rule on fairness and what is right? Shame.

Stop trolling.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Stop trolling.

Hey, fudge you man. Nobody talks to z that way, especially you, asscanker. Defend your lib point of view or shut up.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Hey, fuck you man. Nobody talks to z that way, especially you, assburger. Defend your lib point of view or shut up.

Talks to Z what way? A little sensitive, are we?

He's trolling. He didn't get the debate he was looking for, so now he's going to try and call them cowards to force them to debate him. It's trolling.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Talks to Z what way? A little sensitive, are we?

He's trolling. He didn't get the debate he was looking for, so now he's going to try and call them cowards to force them to debate him. It's trolling.

It's not trolling on this board. He's refining his question for a specific audience. QUit trying to shut down debate by misapplying the rules, you fascist little twin.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

It's not trolling on this board. He's refining his question for a specific audience. QUit trying to shut down debate by misapplying the rules, you fascist little twin.

I'm not trying to shut down anything. Amusing that you'd call me fascist...

"defend your liberal point of view or shut up"

Methinks you need a little more coffee in the mornin'

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'm not trying to shut down anything. Amusing that you'd call me fascist...

"defend your liberal point of view or shut up"

Methinks you need a little more coffee in the mornin'

I think you need to quit being a whining little "rules sissy".

 

[LuvRPgrl]

i Disagree With The Original Post.

 

[5stringJeff]

Stop trolling.

Zhukov is the farthest thing from a troll this board has. I, too, would be interested to see the debate.

LuvRPgrl, why do you disagree?

 

[manu1959]

i Disagree With The Original Post.

just cuz i am bored...........

original post:

I do not believe the Constitution should be read through a prism of contemporary attitudes.

I do not believe the Constitution is a ‘living document’.​

so if you disagree....your posistion would be:

I believe the Constitution should be read through a prism of contemporary attitudes.

I believe the Constitution is a ‘living document’.​

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Zhukov: wasn't calling you a troll, just thought that post was trollish. Apologies either way.

 

[Zhukov]

Zhukov: wasn't calling you a troll, just thought that post was trollish. Apologies either way.

Doesn't matter. Do you agree or disagree with my position? If you disagree what do you believe the role of the Supreme Court should be? How should we read the Constitution?

 

[Zhukov]

i Disagree With The Original Post.

Why?