Living Document or Not?

[ConHog]

Nothing is cast in stone.

Things change, people change.

So it definitely has to be a living document to keep up with the times.

Rights are cast in stone or should I say the Bill of Rights

Correct, sort of.

Obviously certain rights have been restricted at certain times for certain reasons , for certain people. For instance, by a strict reading of the COTUS with no room for interpretation this law would be totally unconstitutional.

Gun Control Act of 1968 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mr Natural]

The Bill of Rights has altered with time. The conservative SCOTUS used a liberal interpretation, incorporation, to bring the 2d under the protection of the national government. No longer do individual states have the right unilaterally to limit gun regulations. Thus classic liberalism trod over conservatism. Times do change, and so do interpretations and procedures re: the Constitution.

"Thus classic liberalism trod over conservatism"
spin doctor spin who are the gun grabbers?

Who's grabbed your guns?

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb, is incorporation a liberal procedure?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nothing is cast in stone.

Things change, people change.

So it definitely has to be a living document to keep up with the times.

The Constitution is written such that it need not change to provide the governmental structure required of it. One need only review the plain meaning of the words as written to determine the law. We do this everyday.

Would you suppose that a contract for lease with a term of 100 years may be interpreted in some different fashion because "things" changed in the 100 years? Most certainly, they are not. They are read with the plain meaning of the words written. If there might be some confusion as to what the word meant, it is researched so that the meaning at the time of the writing is derived. Not a very difficult thing to determine. Nothing in this country is pre-historic. There are very good records of what the language meant all the way back to the founding.

Would we do less for our Social Contract than treat it as well as we would a lease? I see no reason. Is there something that you think the Constitution cannot speak to because of a change or technological revolution?

Finally, if there were some great change, the Constitution specifically allows Amendment

Interesting, Tech, but "originalism" is a minority concept and dwindling as history moves on. Appropriately so, of course.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Bill of Rights has altered with time. The conservative SCOTUS used a liberal interpretation, incorporation, to bring the 2d under the protection of the national government. No longer do individual states have the right unilaterally to limit gun regulations. Thus classic liberalism trod over conservatism. Times do change, and so do interpretations and procedures re: the Constitution.

"Thus classic liberalism trod over conservatism"
spin doctor spin who are the gun grabbers?

Who's grabbed your guns?

I would like for starky to tell me who are the gun grabbers liberals or conservatives. Or are you going to allow him a pass on that stupid comment and question me with a stupid question

 

[JakeStarkey]

You first must answer, bigreb, whether incorporation is a liberal procedure and whether you support it.

Then I can answer your question.

That is how this works.

 

[Liability]

i think some people forget that we live in a common law nation, NOT a code state. The constitution is subject to interpretation. That interpretation is subject to change....

hence plessy v ferguson ends up being reversed by brown v bd of ed.

and there are always questions about how one is to APPLY a particular clause.

people need to understand that scholars have disagreed for 200 years and they aren't going to suddenly pretend that they have THE answer.

it;s silly.

STRICTLY speaking, it is incorrect to say that the US is a common law nation. It is PARTLY a common law nation.

While it is true that our roots DO include the common law, it is also true that we have a large array of codified laws. In fact, our FOUNDING CHARTER, the Constitution, is obviously NOT a "common law" document. We have a MIX of common law and codified law.

We have stare decisis, but we also have very exacting codified laws that may often trump precedent. I don't deny that we have SOME principles of common law inherent in our judicial system because we do. But that's a different kettle of fish than claiming that we "are" a common law country.

Why do some people (mostly libs) say such erroneous things?

britain had codified laws too.

we are a common law country. the only code state is louisiana.

you are misstating the law in the context of a constitutional discussion.

You are mistaken. I am not talking about LA (yes, it is a "code" state). The USA is in PART a common law nation. However, as you SHOULD know, the USA is in PART a statutory law nation. In fact, as you also should know, the Constitution itself is NOT a product of common law.

You are misstating the law.

While it is trivially correct to note that the U.S. is a "common law" nation (because, in part, it is), it is also in part misleading inasmuch as "common law" has no statutory basis and a great many of our laws DO have statutory bases.

Please try to speak with greater precision.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liability, you can answer the questions if you have something to add to this. Otherwise, you are just mumbling and no one is listening.

 

[Liability]

Nothing is cast in stone.

Things change, people change.

So it definitely has to be a living document to keep up with the times.

^ unadulterated juvenile sophistry.

Part of the genius of the Constitution is that it does not need to change in order to address novel issues. In fact, it is not designed to "change" other than by the precise and detailed terms it lays down.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liability, answer the questions, or your postings mean nothing, as they usually do.

 

[Tech_Esq]

bigreb, is incorporation a liberal procedure?

Well you might ask. As I pointed out to you last time you brought this up, there is precedent for incorporation prior to the current liberal/conservative split.

 

[Liability]

Liability, you can answer the questions if you have something to add to this. Otherwise, you are just mumbling and no one is listening.

Given that you are an ignorant shithead, you may refrain from muddying the waters here any further since everyone sees that you are nothing but a bad joke, Jokey.

Now, feel obligated to go **** yourself and go find a thread where you don't embarrass yourself as massively and consistently as you have been doing in this thread.

It is crystal clear to all that you haven't the foggiest notion of the matters under discussion in this thread.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You first must answer, bigreb, whether incorporation is a liberal procedure and whether you support it.

Then I can answer your question.

That is how this works.

I do not have to answer because you were asked first.
Who are the gun grabbers
Liberals or conservatives.
I do recall you told me not to answer a question with a question I suggest you follow your on advice.

Just so we can keep it in context this is what you said

"Thus classic liberalism trod over conservatism"
spin doctor spin who are the gun grabbers?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Nothing is cast in stone.

Things change, people change.

So it definitely has to be a living document to keep up with the times.

The Constitution is written such that it need not change to provide the governmental structure required of it. One need only review the plain meaning of the words as written to determine the law. We do this everyday.

Would you suppose that a contract for lease with a term of 100 years may be interpreted in some different fashion because "things" changed in the 100 years? Most certainly, they are not. They are read with the plain meaning of the words written. If there might be some confusion as to what the word meant, it is researched so that the meaning at the time of the writing is derived. Not a very difficult thing to determine. Nothing in this country is pre-historic. There are very good records of what the language meant all the way back to the founding.

Would we do less for our Social Contract than treat it as well as we would a lease? I see no reason. Is there something that you think the Constitution cannot speak to because of a change or technological revolution?

Finally, if there were some great change, the Constitution specifically allows Amendment

Interesting, Tech, but "originalism" is a minority concept and dwindling as history moves on. Appropriately so, of course.

Good try. But no, it's not.

Feel free to insert another Alinskyite tactic here though. You can A) change the subject and attack or B) use ridicule.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Liability, you can answer the questions if you have something to add to this. Otherwise, you are just mumbling and no one is listening.

Given that you are an ignorant shithead, you may refrain from muddying the waters here any further since everyone sees that you are nothing but a bad joke, Jokey.

Now, feel obligated to go **** yourself and go find a thread where you don't embarrass yourself as massively and consistently as you have been doing in this thread.

It is crystal clear to all that you haven't the foggiest notion of the matters under discussion in this thread.

He's the classic internet troll.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Constitution is written such that it need not change to provide the governmental structure required of it. One need only review the plain meaning of the words as written to determine the law. We do this everyday.

Would you suppose that a contract for lease with a term of 100 years may be interpreted in some different fashion because "things" changed in the 100 years? Most certainly, they are not. They are read with the plain meaning of the words written. If there might be some confusion as to what the word meant, it is researched so that the meaning at the time of the writing is derived. Not a very difficult thing to determine. Nothing in this country is pre-historic. There are very good records of what the language meant all the way back to the founding.

Would we do less for our Social Contract than treat it as well as we would a lease? I see no reason. Is there something that you think the Constitution cannot speak to because of a change or technological revolution?

Finally, if there were some great change, the Constitution specifically allows Amendment

Interesting, Tech, but "originalism" is a minority concept and dwindling as history moves on. Appropriately so, of course.

Good try. But no, it's not.

Feel free to insert another Alinskyite tactic here though. You can A) change the subject and attack or B) use ridicule.

I'll take use ridicule for a 1000 Alex

 

[Liability]

Liability, you can answer the questions if you have something to add to this. Otherwise, you are just mumbling and no one is listening.

Given that you are an ignorant shithead, you may refrain from muddying the waters here any further since everyone sees that you are nothing but a bad joke, Jokey.

Now, feel obligated to go **** yourself and go find a thread where you don't embarrass yourself as massively and consistently as you have been doing in this thread.

It is crystal clear to all that you haven't the foggiest notion of the matters under discussion in this thread.

He's the classic internet troll.

He is that. He drowns in the shallows. He'd drown in a puddle. He's in way the **** over his head as his posts consistently prove. When he has absolutely nothing of any value to say, he posts.

And discounting a couple of other lightweight lib trolls, everyone sees him for the Joke he always is. It's why he has zero credibility and will never have any, either.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb, is incorporation a liberal procedure?

Well you might ask. As I pointed out to you last time you brought this up, there is precedent for incorporation prior to the current liberal/conservative split.

No, you wrote something was not true.

You do not know what incorporation is then.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake: Interesting, Tech, but "originalism" is a minority concept and dwindling as history moves on. Appropriately so, of course.[/QUOTE]

Tech: Good try. But no, it's not.

Feel free to insert another Alinskyite tactic here though. You can A) change the subject and attack or B) use ridicule.[/QUOTE]

Tech is following Rush's Rules of Decption. Please show us that originalism should be followed today. That is a simple request, but you won't be able to answer it.

Also, incorporation is a liberal procedure, not a conservative one. Incorporation has always been liberal, but you can try to disprove that. You can't, though.

Stay away from Rush's Rules and please try to debate fairly.

 

[Wry Catcher]

you mean a 'lib' attorney who knows EXACTLY the type of legal system we live under?

really?

No. A lib like you who apparently doesn't quite know the exact type of legal system we live under, like you.

You, for example, seem to believe (erroneously) that the United States has a "common law" legal system; but if you actually did know exactly what kind of legal system we live under, you wouldn't make such a rookie mistake.

Our legal system is only a common law system in part; not in whole.

He's finding that out as he struggles to present a prima facie case of RICO. Maybe he's madly researching on FindLaw now......

Actually no struggle is necessary. RICO requires a finding of a racketeering activity (obstruction of justice is broad and fits the example just fine).
I'm not about to write a long paragraph in making my point, given those who read posts on this message board hold opinions not generally open to rational and critical thought.