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

[Bob Blaylock]

if it were 'dead' the 2nd amendment would still be considered a militia right, not an individual right.

The Second Amendment does not say anything about any “right of the militia”. It explicitly identifies the right which if affirms as “…the right of the people…”.

until heller it was not considered an individual right

scalia's activism changed that

It was written as an individual right in the original words. “…the right of the people…”. There is no honest way to twist that into meaning anything than an individual right belonging to each and every individual free American. Those who try to claim that it means or was ever intended to mean otherwise are engaging in willful dishonesty.

so you are okay with activism so long as it suits your ideology

It is you who is engaging in “activism”, by denying the clear meaning of the words “…the right of the people…” as they are written in the Constitution, in favor of what you wish had been written instead.

 

[ABikerSailor]

A mortgage is a static document, written for a certain amount of years for a certain amount of money with no changes, and if you want to get more money, you have to take out another mortgage, you don't amend the current one.

The Constitution is a living document in the sense that it was originally written to never expire, as well as left ways that it could be changed so that it could grow according to the needs of this country. Why did they do that? They knew this country was just getting started and was going to grow to a large nation, as well as couldn't foresee everything that would happen in the next centuries, so that is why they made allowances for it to be changed.

 

[regent]

If the Constitution is dead when did it die? It's very much alive and used constantly. Do we obey laws that may be illegal, of course we do. What is the percentage of cases the Supreme Court is asked to hear each year but actually goes on the docket? What happens to the rest of the cases? Does the Court make mistakes, it seems so for occasion the Court will reverse an earlier decision.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

so you are okay with activism so long as it suits your ideology

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

To whom does the right, peaceably to assemble, belong? Is this, or is this not, an individual right, belonging to all the people?

To whom does the right, to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, belong? Is this, or is this not, an individual right, belonging to all the people?

The Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.​

To whom does the right, to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, belong? Is this, or is this not, an individual right, belonging to all the people?

The Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.​

Who retains the unspecified rights spoken of in the Ninth Amendment?

The Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

To whom do the rights and powers belong, that are not delegated to the federal government, nor reserved to the states?

Do you deny that the phrase “the people”, in every instance where it is quoted above, refers to individuals, and that the rights thus identified are individual rights rather than collective rights?

Do I not, as an individual, have the rights, explicitly affirmed in the Bill of Rights, to peaceably assemble with the individuals, to petition my government, to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, and so forth?

So, why, then, would the phrase “the people“ not mean exactly the same thing where it appears in the Second Amendment that it means everywhere else that it appears in the Bill of Rights?

 

[ogibillm]

if it were 'dead' the 2nd amendment would still be considered a militia right, not an individual right.

The Second Amendment does not say anything about any “right of the militia”. It explicitly identifies the right which if affirms as “…the right of the people…”.

until heller it was not considered an individual right

scalia's activism changed that

It was written as an individual right in the original words. “…the right of the people…”. There is no honest way to twist that into meaning anything than an individual right belonging to each and every individual free American. Those who try to claim that it means or was ever intended to mean otherwise are engaging in willful dishonesty.

so you are okay with activism so long as it suits your ideology

It is you who is engaging in “activism”, by denying the clear meaning of the words “…the right of the people…” as they are written in the Constitution, in favor of what you wish had been written instead.

the heller decision broke with tradition. that's typically called activism

 

[Anathema]

The Constitution is a living document in the sense that it was originally written to never expire, as well as left ways that it could be changed so that it could grow according to the needs of this country. Why did they do that? They knew this country was just getting started and was going to grow to a large nation, as well as couldn't foresee everything that would happen in the next centuries, so that is why they made allowances for it to be changed.

They left a process to change it. That process IS NOT public opinion or polling data or Executive discretion. Until and Unless Ammended, via Constitutional Anendment, the document CANNOT legally change.

 

[ogibillm]

The Constitution is a living document in the sense that it was originally written to never expire, as well as left ways that it could be changed so that it could grow according to the needs of this country. Why did they do that? They knew this country was just getting started and was going to grow to a large nation, as well as couldn't foresee everything that would happen in the next centuries, so that is why they made allowances for it to be changed.

They left a process to change it. That process IS NOT public opinion or polling data or Executive discretion. Until and Unless Ammended, via Constitutional Anendment, the document CANNOT legally change.

and.... it isn't changed without amendments. so what are you worked up about?

 

[OKTexas]

When are you going to figure it out, it's not supposed to be complicated.

what does 'cruel and unusual' mean, specifically?

Damn can't you come up with something difficult?
Cruel= Unnecessary inflection of pain or physical suffering. It doesn't mean things have to be pain free.
Unusual= Practices not commonly used.

who decides what is and isn't necessary? you do understand that the constitution was intentionally vague in many areas, right?

It was the folks that wrote the words, flogging, hanging and execution by firing squad were common practices of the time and considered acceptable. Anything equal to or short of those would be acceptable constitutionally now.

I am compelled to admit that the Eight Amendment is an exception to my position, regarding the Constitution as a whole, that it is mostly very clear and unambiguous and in no need of “interpretation” for any purpose other than to evade its clear meaning by those who do not wish to see it obeyed and upheld.

“Cruel and unusual” indeed. It really isn't very clear where that draws the line. I'm of the opinion, but I must admit that there is reasonable basis to disagree, that what it is intended to mean is that the punishment should not be out of proportion to the crime. I think that in modern use, this phrase has been taken to a rather ridiculous extreme; an obvious result of which is the great concern regarding methods of execution that the convict be made to suffer as little as possible in the process. I see nothing at all wrong with a murderer being made to suffer, as he is put to death, to a degree comparable to that which he caused his victim to suffer; and I do not think that causing such would be at all in violation of the intent behind the Eighth Amendment. I see nothing wrong with a convict being tortured, if his crime involved torturing an innocent. I see nothing wrong with treating a convicted criminal with as much cruelty as he treated his victims; and I do not think that those who wrote the Eighth Amendment would have disagreed with me on this point

I don't think I'd go quite that far, but at least you seem to understand the concept. Regressives get all upset a public shaming, when it's imposed by a court, yet they attempt to engage in it every day, with people they disagree with.

 

[OKTexas]

The Second Amendment does not say anything about any “right of the militia”. It explicitly identifies the right which if affirms as “…the right of the people…”.

until heller it was not considered an individual right

scalia's activism changed that

It was written as an individual right in the original words. “…the right of the people…”. There is no honest way to twist that into meaning anything than an individual right belonging to each and every individual free American. Those who try to claim that it means or was ever intended to mean otherwise are engaging in willful dishonesty.

so you are okay with activism so long as it suits your ideology

It is you who is engaging in “activism”, by denying the clear meaning of the words “…the right of the people…” as they are written in the Constitution, in favor of what you wish had been written instead.

the heller decision broke with tradition. that's typically called activism

Right, they actually followed the text as written, who would have thought that would vary from tradition?

 

[OKTexas]

The Constitution is a living document in the sense that it was originally written to never expire, as well as left ways that it could be changed so that it could grow according to the needs of this country. Why did they do that? They knew this country was just getting started and was going to grow to a large nation, as well as couldn't foresee everything that would happen in the next centuries, so that is why they made allowances for it to be changed.

They left a process to change it. That process IS NOT public opinion or polling data or Executive discretion. Until and Unless Ammended, via Constitutional Anendment, the document CANNOT legally change.

and.... it isn't changed without amendments. so what are you worked up about?

That's a lie that I've already demonstrated to be so earlier in the thread. Feel free to go back and read it.

 

[80zephyr]

What the hell is a "living document"? Do liberals think the Constitution is "living" in that it can change and evolve with the times or is the word "living" just a romantic notion?

Refusing to allow interpretations or extensions to an old document is silly.

If you can allow interpretation, then in reality you have no law, except for those currently in power.

Be careful what you wish for.

Mark

 

[Anathema]

and.... it isn't changed without amendments. so what are you worked up about?

So all those Federal Firearms Laws I have to follow are just figments of my imagination? All those unconstitutional welfare programs don't exist? All that foreign aid and spending on US military forces based outside the CONUS doesn't exist?

Those are ALL breaches of the terms of the US Constitution which have been undertaken WITHOUT Constitutional Amendment.

Care to try again?

 

[ogibillm]

and.... it isn't changed without amendments. so what are you worked up about?

So all those Federal Firearms Laws I have to follow are just figments of my imagination? All those unconstitutional welfare programs don't exist? All that foreign aid and spending on US military forces based outside the CONUS doesn't exist?

Those are ALL breaches of the terms of the US Constitution which have been undertaken WITHOUT Constitutional Amendment.

Care to try again?

oh. see your problem is you believe yourself to be the arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional.

in other words, you're delusional

 

[Anathema]

oh. see your problem is you believe yourself to be the arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional.

I'm not the arbiter of anything. The words of the document, written in plain English, are the arbiters of Constitutionality.

 

[ogibillm]

oh. see your problem is you believe yourself to be the arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional.

I'm not the arbiter of anything. The words of the document, written in plain English, are the arbiters of Constitutionality.

then take your grievances to court.

 

[Anathema]

then take your grievances to court.

The only Court I believe has the right to overturn the Constitution issues its judgements from the muzzle of a firearm, and there are no appeals.

 

[NYcarbineer]

oh. see your problem is you believe yourself to be the arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional.

I'm not the arbiter of anything. The words of the document, written in plain English, are the arbiters of Constitutionality.

The Constitution has to be interpreted.

 

[Anathema]

The Constitution has to be interpreted.

No. It simply needs to be read and followef.

 

[KGB]

Americans haven't really modernized their Constitution. It was a viable document 230 years ago, but today it is woefully dated.

When the Founders passed the Second Amendment, there were no multi-shot weapons. Drugs were not an issue. The country was wild and dangerous, and protection from attack was essential. Today, you have dangerous weapons on the street, and you cling to your guns for no reasonable purpose other than "it's your Constitutional right". Dumb.

We have a process to do that...it's called the Amendment process. It's supposed to be hard on purpose. The Founders wanted a document that would stand the test of time but also allow for changes in society. However, they also didn't want it to be so easy to change so that it became meaningless. Given its longevity, it is the standard by which other constitutions & charters are modeled after.

And your view of the 2nd Amendment is precisely why the amendment process was put in place. The first ten are called the Bill of Rights...freedoms which are enumerated. This means they pre-exist & are self evident.

 

[KGB]

Americans haven't really modernized their Constitution. It was a viable document 230 years ago, but today it is woefully dated.

When the Founders passed the Second Amendment, there were no multi-shot weapons. Drugs were not an issue. The country was wild and dangerous, and protection from attack was essential. Today, you have dangerous weapons on the street, and you cling to your guns for no reasonable purpose other than "it's your Constitutional right". Dumb.

They never expected it to last anything like this long. They would have thought that very, very stupid, and they'd be right.

I can't even begin to describe the stupidity of this statement. So you mean to tell me the Founders decided to pick a fight with the superpower of the day (& one of the strongest in history), go through a bloody 8 year war, struggle another 5 years through the Articles of Confederation was all done to build a document that would only last a generation or two at best? Do you know how absurd this sounds to any rational thinker?