What does the Constitution mean to you?

[Independent thinker]

Thanks to the conservative SC(r)OTUS that has largely been circumvented.

It is democrats who want mob rule, to hell with the laws.

 

[22lcidw]

It created a Government of the people, by the people and for the people

Stop paying taxes and see what happens. Do not comply from an authoritarian demand even if it is insignificant. Together with self-important judges, they make people poorer. The Founding Fathers warned on this. We just let it happen and found it convenient.

 

[Curried Goats]

The democratic party has always been big on words, whether they translate into anything or not.

What does ^this empty post translate to?

 

[rightwinger]

He's too late. Democrats have already terminated it.

Can you give an example?

 

[rightwinger]

Stop paying taxes and see what happens. Do not comply from an authoritarian demand even if it is insignificant. Together with self-important judges, they make people poorer. The Founding Fathers warned on this. We just let it happen and found it convenient.

Guess what…we get to elect those that decide how much revenue/taxes need to pay.

Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society.
O W Holmes

 

[Oddball]

The US Constitution is what may be called a "living, breathing document", subject to interpretation as appropriate.

How about we play some three-handed fizzbin with your "living rules", Dudley.

 

[Oddball]

Guess what…we get to elect those that decide how much revenue/taxes need to pay.

Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society.
O W Holmes

 

[rightwinger]

View attachment 883336

An Anarchists view of having to live in a society that provides your health, welfare and security

You want the benefits but don’t want to pay for it

 

[Oddball]

I'm with Lysander Spooner on the matter....

 

[Oddball]

An Anarchists view of having to live in a society that provides your health, welfare and security

You want the benefits but don’t want to pay for it

Where'd you lay your mitts on all that straw?

 

[Independent thinker]

What does ^this empty post translate to?

It's just a fact. But, I do understand why you want to argue that fact.

 

[BluesLegend]

We know that Republicans don't give a damn what the Constitution says, they follow it when it's convenient and discard it when it's not.

100% PURE Dem projection.

 

[Crepitus]

It is democrats who want mob rule, to hell with the laws.

Fake news.

 

[Kondor3]

How about we play some three-handed fizzbin with your "living rules", Dudley.

Irrelevant.

 

[OKTexas]

I’ve been curious. It seems we have a very wide opinion of the constitution on this forum, which reflects what people generally thing of the cotus across America. It seems there are two prevailing opinions, one being its the law of the land, and the guiding document to constrain government and to keep everything in order, and the other being..it’s more of guide that can be interpreted as necessary to facilitate what we want, they ca this “living and breathing”.

Me, for example, I view the cotus like this:

When the cotus was created it was because the citizens at that time wanted a central body to handle things on a national scale, to help cover things that could help cover all of the states. These things were laid out by the delegated powers. They didn’t want a government that ruled every aspect of their lives so they listed everything they wanted the government to do, and and said all things beyond this are for the states and the people.

They never intended for Congress to be a full time job, which is why cotus says that they will meet on occasion to handle the matters at hand, which would have been all that was needed because the only matters at hand would have been the delegated powers.

I believe the cotus is the law of the land and that it is a restriction on the federal government. I believe the cotus should be interpreted by the intent of those who formed it. It should not be open to interpretation because many people can interpret things many different ways. Given the limited scope of the powers it delegates to the government, there really isn’t any need to interpret it anyway, it is very clear about what it wants the federal government to do and not do. It is only because we’ve gotten so far away from the original intent of the cotus that it needs interpretation anyway.

Should we determine that we need to change something in the document, it gave us a way to do so.

That’s a basic take on it. Your thoughts?

I'll take the word of the guy that actually wrote the majority of the Constitution, James Madison.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45

.

 

[Oddball]

Irrelevant.

Not at all...."Living rules" is bullshit.

 

[Kondor3]

Not at all...."Living rules" is bullshit.

Calling the US Constitution a living, breathing (adaptable, flexible) document is bull$hit? Yeah... sure it is...

 

[Oddball]

Calling the US Constitution a living, breathing (adaptable, flexible) document is bull$hit? Yeah... sure it is...

Yes, it is bullshit...."Living rules" actually means no rules at all.

Flush beats a straight, unless we can get a majority vote to say it doesn't.

 

[Foxfyre]

I’ve been curious. It seems we have a very wide opinion of the constitution on this forum, which reflects what people generally thing of the cotus across America. It seems there are two prevailing opinions, one being its the law of the land, and the guiding document to constrain government and to keep everything in order, and the other being..it’s more of guide that can be interpreted as necessary to facilitate what we want, they ca this “living and breathing”.

Me, for example, I view the cotus like this:

When the cotus was created it was because the citizens at that time wanted a central body to handle things on a national scale, to help cover things that could help cover all of the states. These things were laid out by the delegated powers. They didn’t want a government that ruled every aspect of their lives so they listed everything they wanted the government to do, and and said all things beyond this are for the states and the people.

They never intended for Congress to be a full time job, which is why cotus says that they will meet on occasion to handle the matters at hand, which would have been all that was needed because the only matters at hand would have been the delegated powers.

I believe the cotus is the law of the land and that it is a restriction on the federal government. I believe the cotus should be interpreted by the intent of those who formed it. It should not be open to interpretation because many people can interpret things many different ways. Given the limited scope of the powers it delegates to the government, there really isn’t any need to interpret it anyway, it is very clear about what it wants the federal government to do and not do. It is only because we’ve gotten so far away from the original intent of the cotus that it needs interpretation anyway.

Should we determine that we need to change something in the document, it gave us a way to do so.

That’s a basic take on it. Your thoughts?

I am a Constitutional literalist meaning I think it is necessary to teach the founding documents that resulted in the letter and law of the Constitution that was signed and ratified in 1787.

The intent was for the central (federal) government to have sufficient authority to fuse the existing 13 colonies/states and any subsequent states into one cohesive nation while allowed each state as much autonomy as possible. The central government would do only those things that the various states and/or their citizens could not be expected to efficiently and effectively do for themselves individually. Anything that the Constitution did not specifically assign to the federal government, the federal government was disallowed from doing.

Various presidents over the decades have at times stretched the authority of the Constitution but none seriously violated the letter and intent of it until Teddy Roosevelt who assumed that he as President or the government had authority to do anything the Constitution did not expressly forbid.

That turning the Constitution on its head is what started the snowball slowly but constantly rolling down hill picking up more and more momentum and unintended snow and debris until we having the monstrosity unmanageable and uncontrollable monster of federal government that now exists.

The original Constitution was pure genius just as it was written with the belief that law abiding American citizens are born with unalienable rights among which included, but were not restricted to, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The central government was forbidden to interfere with those rights in any way but was charged to defend and secure them.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Seems like a lot of people didn’t really want to answer the question. Most of them were just snide comments or bickering. I was just trying to get a sense of how people viewed the cotus, and what they thought its role and impact should be in society.

The US Constitution is what may be called a "living, breathing document", subject to interpretation as appropriate.

Disputes oftentimes arise over what constitutes "appropriate" in a given context but it is not a locked-in Napoleonic Code.

I'm all for "originalism" or "literalism" when practicable but the Founders intended it to be amended as time goes by.

Our next Big Constitutional Challenge may very well be to determine whether it is time to call a new Constitutional Convention.

Personally... "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"... the Constitution has held us together for 240-ish years... and it ain't broke.

Still...

There are some pressing society-at-large questions that may only be fixable by Constitutional overhaul rather than Amendments.

Tough call.

but it is not a locked-in Napoleonic Code

See, I think it is. To say that it’s living and breathing means its entire purpose and meaning can morph over time. This is bad because that means it can be molded to suit agendas based on who’s in power at any given time.

but the Founders intended it to be amended as time goes by.

Yes, they did, and there is a process for that, not just someone interpreting it and re interpreting it over and over. Thats the problem, we’ve found a way to get around the amendment process by simply just changing its meaning by interpretation.

Personally... "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"... the Constitution has held us together for 240-ish years... and it ain't broke.

That only works if people stick to the original intent. Otherwise, it’s broke already.