What does the Constitution mean to you?

[Curried Goats]

So your contention is the electoral college? Is that your beef? So you think that these giant liberal hubs like New York, LA, Austin..etc…should be able to always have their way, and smaller states are just supposed to never have a say?

The original intent there wasn't to preserve the say of smaller states, it was there to assure slave states that their political interests would be preserved. Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware were all smaller but it was the existence of slaves that awarded you extra electoral votes.

That is so wrong. The cotus IS future proof, it’s just that, when we started going away from its actually purpose, and everyone started wanting something from it that it was never intended to give, that people started taking issue.

You basically said nothing here. "Going away from it's acutal purpose?" You have an opinion about what that is but that's it. So does everyone else. You say it's to leave little impact on people's lives but when I challenged you on that point you ran off.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Like the supreme court’s ruling from last year that stated domestic abusers can’t be barred from own guns because no laws against besting your wife existed in 1779.

Right

What does that have to do with the constitution?

 

[ThisIsMe]

The original intent there wasn't to preserve the say of smaller states, it was there to assure slave states that their political interests would be preserved. Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware were all smaller but it was the existence of slaves that awarded you extra electoral votes.

You basically said nothing here. "Going away from it's acutal purpose?" You have an opinion about what that is but that's it. So does everyone else. You say it's to leave little impact on people's lives but when I challenged you on that point you ran off.

The electoral college was formed because, frankly, they couldn’t come up with anything better. There were several reasons for the creation of the electoral college, and allowing slave holding states to leverage the three fifths compromise was one of them. However, we remedied that by the 13th amendment and those states’ extra delegates were done away with because of that.

You say it's to leave little impact on people's lives but when I challenged you on that point you ran off.

What challenge? Did you ask a question that I missed? I haven’t “run off” from anything.

 

[otto105]

What does that have to do with the constitution?

Original intent of a dead document.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Original intent of a dead document.

This

Like the supreme court’s ruling from last year that stated domestic abusers can’t be barred from own guns because no laws against besting your wife existed in 1779.

Has nothing to do with the cotus, at all. That’s a justice talking about the lack of laws. Even if the cotus did talk about it, then it’s a problem for an amendment process, not just completely ignoring it.

Ok, how about this, Article 4 section 4 says that the United States shall guarantee to every state a republican form of government. So if we’re going just interpret it as we see fit, the maybe the interpretation should be, if you are a democrat, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote…since you are violating the constitutions directive to GUARANTEE a republican form of government, and your vote is in contradiction to that.


So, yeah, we should start a petition to prevent democrats from voting! How’s that for interpretation?

 

[otto105]

This



Has nothing to do with the cotus, at all. That’s a justice talking about the lack of laws. Even if the cotus did talk about it, then it’s a problem for an amendment process, not just completely ignoring it.

Ok, how about this, Article 4 section 4 says that the United States shall guarantee to every state a republican form of government. So if we’re going just interpret it as we see fit, the maybe the interpretation should be, if you are a democrat, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote…since you are violating the constitutions directive to GUARANTEE a republican form of government, and your vote is in contradiction to that.


So, yeah, we should start a petition to prevent democrats from voting! How’s that for interpretation?

Has everything to do with conservative dead document believers ******* up the present.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Has everything to do with conservative dead document believers ******* up the present.

Ok, then what’s your alternative? You don’t like the cotus. What’s your better solution?

 

[otto105]

Ok, then what’s your alternative? You don’t like the cotus. What’s your better solution?

I don’t like the dead document justices on court trying to talk to dead people.

Or being bought by Harold crow.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I don’t like the dead document justices on court trying to talk to dead people.

Or being bought by Harold crow.

Ok, so let’s just throw the cotus out. It’s gone. Now, what is your solution? What is your replacement idea?

 

[otto105]

Ok, so let’s just throw the cotus out. It’s gone. Now, what is your solution? What is your replacement idea?

I believe in our system including the Supreme Court. I would term limit justices and require ABA standards for justices. The former fuckup nominated many unqualified and political hacks to courts.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

The Rosewater director highlighted Trump’s disdain for the first amendment as well as his interest in becoming a dictator, even if it’s only for one day as well as his interest in getting the military to shoot peaceful protestors.

Jon Stewart Calls Out The GOP’s “Performative” Patriotism In Latest ‘Daily Show’ Salvo: “This Is Monarchy Sh*t”

Donald Trump’s supporters are more patriotic than liberals in New York and California, right? Jon Stewart used his latest weekly spot on The Daily Show to rail against the GOP’s “performative” patriotism, draped in American flags and referencing the constitution. “If you want to love Trump, love...

deadline.com

 

[sealybobo]

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?

Like the bible, the constitution can be interpreted different depending on who's reading it. For example Bush and Trump may not agree on what is and isn't constitutional. Certainly Jimmy Carter and Trump would disagree a lot on what is and isn't constitutional.

Here is more evidence Republicans cherry pick. It's something Bill Clinton pointed out.

“I have a sneaking suspicion that if the Democrats were back in the White House, there will be a ‘Hallelujah’ moment and the Supreme Court will rediscover the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the limits of power,” Clinton predicted.

 

[sealybobo]

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

One other thing regarding how the Supreme Court sees things differently depending on who they are ruling for and against. Remember Gore V Bush? They totally cherry picked justifications on why they sided with Bush. And today Republicans repeat those half truths as evidence it was Gore who tried to steal 2000.

And don't say the Supremes didn't side with Bush in 2020. They couldn't. Trump lost EVERY swing state. Can you imagine the spin they'd have to put on their decision to say Trump won? So they couldn't help him. But they would have if they could have. And they sure as hell will if the next one is close.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Like the bible, the constitution can be interpreted different depending on who's reading it. For example Bush and Trump may not agree on what is and isn't constitutional. Certainly Jimmy Carter and Trump would disagree a lot on what is and isn't constitutional.

Here is more evidence Republicans cherry pick. It's something Bill Clinton pointed out.

“I have a sneaking suspicion that if the Democrats were back in the White House, there will be a ‘Hallelujah’ moment and the Supreme Court will rediscover the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the limits of power,” Clinton predicted.

I dont agree, the cotus is pretty specific and the meaning changes only because people want to change the context of the words. We have the cotus, and supporting documents like the federalist papers to tell us what it means and why they wrote what they wrote.


If the cotus was intended to be fluid, why even have one at all?

 

[sealybobo]

I dont agree, the cotus is pretty specific and the meaning changes only because people want to change the context of the words. We have the cotus, and supporting documents like the federalist papers to tell us what it means and why they wrote what they wrote.


If the cotus was intended to be fluid, why even have one at all?

Bullshit. The current conservative Supreme's are a bunch of snowflakes.

And so obviously corrupt. You know it. Do I need to remind you of the recent Harlan Crow controversies? And the Supreme's ruling that it's okay to accept a gift AFTER a ruling, just not before a ruling. That would be too obviously corrupt. Give it to me after I rule in your favor.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Bullshit. The current conservative Supreme's are a bunch of snowflakes.

And so obviously corrupt. You know it. Do I need to remind you of the recent Harlan Crow controversies? And the Supreme's ruling that it's okay to accept a gift AFTER a ruling, just not before a ruling. That would be too obviously corrupt. Give it to me after I rule in your favor.

What does that have to do with what I said? The cotus doesn't say anything about the supreme court taking gifts.

 

[sealybobo]

What does that have to do with what I said? The cotus doesn't say anything about the supreme court taking gifts.

What is cotus?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Bullshit. The current conservative Supreme's are a bunch of snowflakes.

And so obviously corrupt. You know it. Do I need to remind you of the recent Harlan Crow controversies? And the Supreme's ruling that it's okay to accept a gift AFTER a ruling, just not before a ruling. That would be too obviously corrupt. Give it to me after I rule in your favor.

Yes on several occasions the scotus has ruled against trump.

while I dont agree with public officials receiving gifts as provided by most ethics policies, the scotus decision you refer to was about state and local officials.

As far as Harlan crow, I agree the optics are bad, but as far as im aware, the only rule (a rule, not a law) he broke was not reporting it, and i would fully expect thomas to refuse himself if any cases involving Mr crow were to come before the scotus.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Like the bible, the constitution can be interpreted different depending on who's reading it. For example Bush and Trump may not agree on what is and isn't constitutional. Certainly Jimmy Carter and Trump would disagree a lot on what is and isn't constitutional.

"Interpretation" is the reason the cotus doesnt mean anything anymore. Again, if I can interpret it any way I want, what's the point of it? Interpretation is why we have such bickering about it because each side wants to interpret it to fit their agenda. The framers already interpreted it for us and put the words on paper, why the need to interpret it any further?

Here is more evidence Republicans cherry pick. It's something Bill Clinton pointed out.

“I have a sneaking suspicion that if the Democrats were back in the White House, there will be a ‘Hallelujah’ moment and the Supreme Court will rediscover the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the limits of power,” Clinton predicted.

the difference is, I don't want any special exceptions for repubs. I want the cotus to apply equally to left and right both.

 

[Woodznutz]

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 dunno. There are 1.31 million active-duty military that have sworn to uphold the Constitution but have few or no Constitutional rights.

I was thrown in jail once with no evidence against me. Where were my Constitutional rights of innocence until proven guilty?