That pesky Constitutionj

[bush lover]

Do we need to scrap it and come up with something else to meet the new terror challenges?

 

[Avatar4321]

Do we need to scrap it and come up with something else to meet the new terror challenges?

Um... No. We just need to actually follow it. Something that hasnt been done effectively since the libs started attacking it.

 

[Mr. P]

Do we need to scrap it and come up with something else to meet the new terror challenges?

Scrap the foundation of the Country because there is a new problem? Yer kidding, right?

BTW..pretty sure I know where yer going with this.

 

[bush lover]

I'm simply asking, is it time to bring the Constitution up to date?

 

[5stringJeff]

I'm simply asking, is it time to bring the Constitution up to date?

It's fine the way it is, with the exception of the clause in the 14th Amendment that allows for anchor babies.

 

[Mr. P]

I'm simply asking, is it time to bring the Constitution up to date?

That's not what you asked...but whos date? And why?

 

[Hobbit]

Would you people stop feeding this guy? He's a known DU plant who says things that his nutso friends think all conservatives agree with so that 'when' we agree with him, he can go back to DU and tell all his nutso friends how evil we all are.

 

[Mr. P]

Would you people stop feeding this guy? He's a known DU plant who says things that his nutso friends think all conservatives agree with so that 'when' we agree with him, he can go back to DU and tell all his nutso friends how evil we all are.

It's play time, Hobbit.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

I would be thrilled to scrap it entirely, if I could rewrite it with stronger and more explicit restraints on government power.

 

[Hobbit]

I would be thrilled to scrap it entirely, if I could rewrite it with stronger and more explicit restraints on government power.

The problem isn't the Constitution. The problem is a government that thinks itself above the Constitution.

 

[insein]

The problem isn't the Constitution. The problem is a government that thinks itself above the Constitution.

There it is.

The constitution works perfectly when it is applied correctly. The problem comes when politicians and judges try to change what the constitution says.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

If the Constitution were white, the 9th circuit would interpret it as black. The problem is the assumption that the Constitution is a "living document" that is open to interpretation. This is bullshit, it is ironclad and should be followed to the letter.

 

[Diuretic]

If the Constitution were white, the 9th circuit would interpret it as black. The problem is the assumption that the Constitution is a "living document" that is open to interpretation. This is bullshit, it is ironclad and should be followed to the letter.

OTF - this is the crux of the discussion isn't it? This is one of the reasons that opponents of a written constitution in my country put up when there is ever a proposal for a statutory bill of rights.

Is it tenable that a document prepared in the 18th Century should be given a direct and literal interpretation? Doesn't the fact of amendments mean that any establishing document has to be seen as a "living" document that reflects a society's needs through time?

I'll pause. At this point I'd like to ask - no reflection on you OTF - if it's possible to follow that idea in a reasonably courteous discussion based more or less on fact. Having someone swoop in spitting slogans would be less than helpful.

Any thoughts?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

OTF - this is the crux of the discussion isn't it? This is one of the reasons that opponents of a written constitution in my country put up when there is ever a proposal for a statutory bill of rights.

Is it tenable that a document prepared in the 18th Century should be given a direct and literal interpretation? Doesn't the fact of amendments mean that any establishing document has to be seen as a "living" document that reflects a society's needs through time?

I'll pause. At this point I'd like to ask - no reflection on you OTF - if it's possible to follow that idea in a reasonably courteous discussion based more or less on fact. Having someone swoop in spitting slogans would be less than helpful.

Any thoughts?

Open interpretation is what has led to legislation from the bench. Since the Constitution is the basis for our government, it is absolutely tenable to follow it strictly. Laws should be changed to be "more fitting" for the times. The Constitution is good, it's interpretation is the problem. It seems that those who want to openly interpret it also don't like what is written.

 

[Avatar4321]

OTF - this is the crux of the discussion isn't it? This is one of the reasons that opponents of a written constitution in my country put up when there is ever a proposal for a statutory bill of rights.

Is it tenable that a document prepared in the 18th Century should be given a direct and literal interpretation? Doesn't the fact of amendments mean that any establishing document has to be seen as a "living" document that reflects a society's needs through time?

I'll pause. At this point I'd like to ask - no reflection on you OTF - if it's possible to follow that idea in a reasonably courteous discussion based more or less on fact. Having someone swoop in spitting slogans would be less than helpful.

Any thoughts?

No I dont think it should be seen as a living document in that it can be interpreted differently for different times. The Founders phrased things the way they did for a reason. They expected things to change one way: Through the Amendment process.

The idea that we should be reinterpreting the same passages of the Constitution differently just because time has passes id utterly ridiculous.

 

[Diuretic]

Open interpretation is what has led to legislation from the bench. Since the Constitution is the basis for our government, it is absolutely tenable to follow it strictly. Laws should be changed to be "more fitting" for the times. The Constitution is good, it's interpretation is the problem. It seems that those who want to openly interpret it also don't like what is written.

Okay, I understand. But what is "legislation from the bench"? Again I'm going to add that this is not me being deliberately disingenuous. My understanding of US law is weak but getting a bit better. You may have some examples of "legislation from the bench" but I'm wondering what that could mean. For example, Miranda v Arizona which I think goes back to about 1966 (?) - is that legislation from the bench?

 

[Diuretic]

No I dont think it should be seen as a living document in that it can be interpreted differently for different times. The Founders phrased things the way they did for a reason. They expected things to change one way: Through the Amendment process.

The idea that we should be reinterpreting the same passages of the Constitution differently just because time has passes id utterly ridiculous.

Fair enough.

 

[Hobbit]

Okay, I understand. But what is "legislation from the bench"? Again I'm going to add that this is not me being deliberately disingenuous. My understanding of US law is weak but getting a bit better. You may have some examples of "legislation from the bench" but I'm wondering what that could mean. For example, Miranda v Arizona which I think goes back to about 1966 (?) - is that legislation from the bench?

No, Miranda v Arizona simply established that the Consitutional provision against self-incrimination included an obligation to inform the person of this right. No new law written here.

An example of legislation from the bench would be like Roe v Wade, where the supreme court, rather than elaborte on a current ammendment, used a loophole found in the 9th ammendment (which says that just because a right isn't listed doesn't mean it doesn't exist) and case law on privacy rights to say that it was illegal to deny somebody an abortion. This is a new law and falls far outside the bounds of interperetation. It also contradicted many laws and precedents already on record. Another example would be the Boston Supreme Court declaring it illegal to deny marriage to gays. It's not elaboration, it's new law.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Okay, I understand. But what is "legislation from the bench"? Again I'm going to add that this is not me being deliberately disingenuous. My understanding of US law is weak but getting a bit better. You may have some examples of "legislation from the bench" but I'm wondering what that could mean. For example, Miranda v Arizona which I think goes back to about 1966 (?) - is that legislation from the bench?

Legislating from the bench is when a judge sets a precedent that "creates" a law. Such as Roe v. Wade(this isn't an abortion debate, just citing it as an example) In this case, the judicial interjected itself into a case that should have been left up to Congress. When the Constitution is allowed to be interpreted openly it allows our branches of government to go beyond the scope of their power.

 

[Diuretic]

No, Miranda v Arizona simply established that the Consitutional provision against self-incrimination included an obligation to inform the person of this right. No new law written here.

An example of legislation from the bench would be like Roe v Wade, where the supreme court, rather than elaborte on a current ammendment, used a loophole found in the 9th ammendment (which says that just because a right isn't listed doesn't mean it doesn't exist) and case law on privacy rights to say that it was illegal to deny somebody an abortion. This is a new law and falls far outside the bounds of interperetation. It also contradicted many laws and precedents already on record. Another example would be the Boston Supreme Court declaring it illegal to deny marriage to gays. It's not elaboration, it's new law.

I see. Thanks for that - that definitely clarifies the argument for me.