Marco Rubio: The Constitution is not a living document.........

[ogibillm]

No one maintains that judges 'change' the Constitution, the notion is idiocy; judges use Constitutional case law when subjecting cases to review to determine whether a given measure passes muster or not.

And laws that fail to pass Constitutional muster are invalidated by the courts as authorized to do by the Constitution, where invalidated law in no way 'changes' the Constitution.

Unless a Finding adds a brand new class of "just some repugnant behaviors but not others like them" to the 14th Amendment.

The Founding fathers meant that if any change should happen to the Constitution, it should change like an oak tree, not like a cheetah. We've seen cheetah changes. We need Justices on the Bench like Scalia. You don't drive a vehicle without brakes..

scalia never cast a single vote that mattered

 

[OKTexas]

The Constitution is neither 'living' nor 'static,' it is subject to interpretation by the courts as authorized by Articles III and VI; the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, which becomes the supreme law of the land, binding on the states, local jurisdictions, and the lower courts.

As Justice Kennedy explained in Lawrence:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

The Constitution, therefore, codifies the principles of liberty, justice, and freedom, its case law guides lawmakers to enact measures consistent with Constitutional jurisprudence, and it guides jurists when subjecting laws to judicial review, and invalidating those measures repugnant to the Constitution when the people err and enact measures in bad faith, in conflict with that Constitutional jurisprudence.

This is the essence of the rule of law and of our Constitutional Republic, reflecting the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation.

Bullshit!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Rubio stated that the Constitution isn't a living document.

However, based on what the founders wrote, it clearly is.

A living document means that the contents are open to interpretation. That is not true.

if that was the case we would have no reason or need for a supreme court

You obviously don't know anything about Scalia because he agreed 100% with what I just stated.

 

[ogibillm]

Rubio stated that the Constitution isn't a living document.

However, based on what the founders wrote, it clearly is.

A living document means that the contents are open to interpretation. That is not true.

if that was the case we would have no reason or need for a supreme court

You obviously don't know anything about Scalia because he agreed 100% with what I just stated.

great.
and scalia never made a decision as a justice that mattered

 

[blackhawk]

You guy's know dam good and well what Rubio was saying which is you can't constantly reinterpert the Constitution just to suit your political agenda of the moment.

 

[OKTexas]

Rubio stated that the Constitution isn't a living document.

However, based on what the founders wrote, it clearly is.

It can be changed...by vote of the people...not the whim of the justices.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

No one maintains that judges 'change' the Constitution, the notion is idiocy; judges use Constitutional case law when subjecting cases to review to determine whether a given measure passes muster or not.

And laws that fail to pass Constitutional muster are invalidated by the courts as authorized to do by the Constitution, where invalidated law in no way 'changes' the Constitution.

Once again you are totally full of bullshit. The courts redefining Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, totally altered the central governments limitations as defined in the remainder of the section. In doing so they completely ignore earlier supreme court precedent. So shove you claim that the court doesn't change the Constitution or is compelled to be bound by case law.

 

[OKTexas]

The Constitution, whatever else it is, is a relatively brief and generalized document, given that it is the framework for the governance of a nation.

That is why the Constitution has a judicial branch to arbitrate disputes on what the Constitution means on specific matters.

At least that's what the stateist keep telling us. It's not true, but that's never stopped you before.

 

[ogibillm]

You guy's know dam good and well what Rubio was saying which is you can't constantly reinterpert the Constitution just to suit your political agenda of the moment.

only fools think that happens

 

[blackhawk]

You guy's know dam good and well what Rubio was saying which is you can't constantly reinterpert the Constitution just to suit your political agenda of the moment.

only fools think that happens

Only fools pretend they don't try also fools only tend to notice it when someone trys to do it over something they don't agree with.

 

[OKTexas]

Rubio stated that the Constitution isn't a living document.

However, based on what the founders wrote, it clearly is.

A living document means that the contents are open to interpretation. That is not true.

if that was the case we would have no reason or need for a supreme court

It's the responsibility of the court to apply the Constitution and laws, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[ogibillm]

Rubio stated that the Constitution isn't a living document.

However, based on what the founders wrote, it clearly is.

A living document means that the contents are open to interpretation. That is not true.

if that was the case we would have no reason or need for a supreme court

It's the responsibility of the court to apply the Constitution and laws, nothing more, nothing less.

right. and that requires interpretation

 

[OKTexas]

Rubio stated that the Constitution isn't a living document.

However, based on what the founders wrote, it clearly is.

A living document means that the contents are open to interpretation. That is not true.

if that was the case we would have no reason or need for a supreme court

It's the responsibility of the court to apply the Constitution and laws, nothing more, nothing less.

right. and that requires interpretation

Nope, just an ability to read.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Google "constitution living document" sometime, and you will see that many lawyers agree that it is a living document.

Living Constitution Law & Legal Definition

And many, many lawyers and jurist disagree. Scalia disagreed with the idea.

It is certainly notable that those who promote or claim to agree with the “Living Document” view of the Constitution are invariably those who wish for government to pursue policies that are clearly prohibited by any honest, direct reading of the Constitution; and who know that they have no reasonable chance of pursuing these policies through the legitimate path of amending the Constitution to allow them.

The notion of the Constitution as a “Living Document” is nothing more than a euphemism for willfully violating and undermining the Constitution rather than obeying and upholding it as written or seeking to change it legitimately through the Amendment process.

 

[ogibillm]

Rubio stated that the Constitution isn't a living document.

However, based on what the founders wrote, it clearly is.

A living document means that the contents are open to interpretation. That is not true.

if that was the case we would have no reason or need for a supreme court

It's the responsibility of the court to apply the Constitution and laws, nothing more, nothing less.

right. and that requires interpretation

Nope, just an ability to read.

please. you know that people can read the same thing and come to different conclusions.

 

[Andylusion]

In the debates last night, one of the comments by Marco Rubio is that the Constitution is not a living document, and must be interpreted literally by what the Founding Fathers wrote.

Marco Rubio: Obama Should Not Appoint Supreme Court Justice - Breitbart

The Best Lines of the GOP Debate

If Marco Rubio is such a smart man about the Constitution, does he understand that the Constitution actually IS a living document? The Founding Fathers made sure of that and understood that eventually, as the country changed, the Constitution should be able to be changed, which is why they allowed for it to be amended as required.

And yeah..............in the spirit of fairness, one link is from Breitbart for the conservatives, and from ABC news for everyone else.

Marco is right. Which is why I support him.

The idea of a living document, is that it is continuously in a state of flux. That it can be reinterpreted at will, by whomever reads it.

That's equal to suggesting that any of the bill of rights, could be reinterpreted at any moment, to mean whatever whomever wishes it to be. In other words, you don't really have any rights at all. Any of them could be reinterpreted at any time.

A static document, is more like a law. Meaning those rights are set in stone, and guaranteed to you. They can't be changed on a whim, but only through a limited and difficult process of Amendment.

The best analogy would be Wikipedia verses say Encyclopædia Britannica. Wikipedia can be changed at any moment, hundreds of times in a single day.

Imagine if our driving laws were like Wikipedia. The speed limit could be changed dozens of times an hour. The penalty for speeding could change from buying the police officer a snow cone, to giving your home to the state, at any minute. It's a living document after all, subject to interpretation by anyone at any time.

Britannica on the other hand, is carefully crafted over several years, and published. When there is something egregious they will update a revision, but otherwise, it's set in stone, until the next big release.

 

[OKTexas]

A living document means that the contents are open to interpretation. That is not true.

if that was the case we would have no reason or need for a supreme court

It's the responsibility of the court to apply the Constitution and laws, nothing more, nothing less.

right. and that requires interpretation

Nope, just an ability to read.

please. you know that people can read the same thing and come to different conclusions.

Contracts, aren't open to interpretation, especially the Constitution, it was written in plain language, not legal ease, the founders wanted to make it so simple a common farmer could easily understand it. It was never a complicated document until lawyers got involved and started playing semantics games.

 

[ogibillm]

if that was the case we would have no reason or need for a supreme court

It's the responsibility of the court to apply the Constitution and laws, nothing more, nothing less.

right. and that requires interpretation

Nope, just an ability to read.

please. you know that people can read the same thing and come to different conclusions.

Contracts, aren't open to interpretation, especially the Constitution

nobody ever has a contract dispute?

 

[OKTexas]

It's the responsibility of the court to apply the Constitution and laws, nothing more, nothing less.

right. and that requires interpretation

Nope, just an ability to read.

please. you know that people can read the same thing and come to different conclusions.

Contracts, aren't open to interpretation, especially the Constitution

nobody ever has a contract dispute?

Only when someone violates it, or say it doesn't mean what it says, both should lose, unfortunately modern judges sometimes don't rule that way.

 

[ogibillm]

right. and that requires interpretation

Nope, just an ability to read.

please. you know that people can read the same thing and come to different conclusions.

Contracts, aren't open to interpretation, especially the Constitution

nobody ever has a contract dispute?

Only when someone violates it, or say it doesn't mean what it says, both should lose, unfortunately modern judges sometimes don't rule that way.

You have an overly simplistic view

 

[peach174]

In the debates last night, one of the comments by Marco Rubio is that the Constitution is not a living document, and must be interpreted literally by what the Founding Fathers wrote.

Marco Rubio: Obama Should Not Appoint Supreme Court Justice - Breitbart

The Best Lines of the GOP Debate

If Marco Rubio is such a smart man about the Constitution, does he understand that the Constitution actually IS a living document? The Founding Fathers made sure of that and understood that eventually, as the country changed, the Constitution should be able to be changed, which is why they allowed for it to be amended as required.

And yeah..............in the spirit of fairness, one link is from Breitbart for the conservatives, and from ABC news for everyone else.

Except the Liberal Dems did what they wanted by misinterpreting that document. One example would be about the 2nd Amendment.
They turned the meaning of our document to fit their ideology because they knew that it was too hard to change it. The Founders did that on purpose.
Most of things that has been changed has not gone through the actual steps to change the document like it was meant to be and the Repubs just went along with it.