Where Do YOU Stand On The Constitution?

[DriftingSand]

You may pick two choices in this poll.

The Constitution: Should America remain a Constitutional Republic with the Constitution as our basic "Rule Of Law" or would you prefer to see a completely new form of government.

Please explain why a Constitutional Republic is the superior, governmental system or why it should be replaced with some other form of government. If the latter, detail what the new government would look like and why it would be superior.

 

[Jackson]

Are you actually talking about a strict constructionist and a broad constructionist?

"Strict constructionalism is the term used to describe a literal or strict reading of the United States Constitution. The other side of the coin is typically termed judicial activism. Strict constructionalism simply means that nothing should be read into the Constitution that isn’t clearly already there, such as special rights for one segment of the population. A broad interpretation instead of a strict reading often leads to creating new rights or to rewriting policy."

I believe in strict constructionalism. As a strict constructionist, I believe we need to change the constitution to meet the needs when it's time. Not keep reinterpreting it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Are you actually talking about a strict constructionist and a broad constructionist?

No, he's saying WE should tell HIM if we are strict constructionists, or if we favor re-interpreting things to do what WE want instead of what the Founders originally wanted, or if we should throw out part or all of the Constitution, or etc.

Titles such as "strict constructionist" or whatever, are probably more restrictive then they are helpful. WE need to tell HIM what we believe, not try to see if we fit into some box you are providing with these titles.

 

[hipeter924]

There isn't an option for agreeing with most of the constitution, and wanting some parts to be amended.

 

[DriftingSand]

Are you actually talking about a strict constructionist and a broad constructionist?

"Strict constructionalism is the term used to describe a literal or strict reading of the United States Constitution. The other side of the coin is typically termed judicial activism. Strict constructionalism simply means that nothing should be read into the Constitution that isn’t clearly already there, such as special rights for one segment of the population. A broad interpretation instead of a strict reading often leads to creating new rights or to rewriting policy."

I believe in strict constructionalism. As a strict constructionist, I believe we need to change the constitution to meet the needs when it's time. Not keep reinterpreting it.

Hi Jackson. I think Little Acorn has the general gist of things. It's hard to fit a lot of stuff in these polls so I'm trying to get a feel for where society is at in relation to our Founders' vision of the Constitution and its initial purpose/intent vs. how today's courts/government interprets the Constitution in light of America's major shift to "the left." I'm also trying to find out if there are Americans who actually believe there is a better system of governance and what that system may look like (in their own words/terms).

 

[DriftingSand]

There isn't an option for agreeing with most of the constitution, and wanting some parts to be amended.

Yeah there is:
"I believe in keeping SOME aspects of the Constitution but changing other aspects."

Some could mean most.

 

[DriftingSand]

For the record, I chose the very first and the very last poll locations. States' Rights are currently being trampled by activist judges. Individuals who've totally ignored the will of the people of various States.

 

[hipeter924]

There isn't an option for agreeing with most of the constitution, and wanting some parts to be amended.

Yeah there is:
"I believe in keeping SOME aspects of the Constitution but changing other aspects."

Some could mean most.

Thats not the same. Would have to remove 'some' and change that to 'keeping aspects of the constitution'.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Please explain why a Constitutional Republic is the superior,

A constitutional republic is not superior but our Constitutional Republic was because the Constitution was written by very very wise men who correctly feared govt above all else.

In fact , the Bill of Rights was originally not included out of fear that if a govt was given the power to insure rights it would instead pervert that power to destroy right.

The dream of magical big govt has been a constant in human history only thanks to human ignorance.

 

[DriftingSand]

There isn't an option for agreeing with most of the constitution, and wanting some parts to be amended.

Yeah there is:
"I believe in keeping SOME aspects of the Constitution but changing other aspects."

Some could mean most.

Thats not the same. Would have to remove 'some' and change that to 'keeping aspects of the constitution'.

You said that there isn't an option for agreeing with most (not all ... which means some) of the Constitution while amending (which is the same and changing certain aspects) of the Constitution. Is as close as the poll is going to get to your specific desire. I can't mind read nor is there room to list every possible microscopic version of the myriad of possibilities.

 

[DriftingSand]

Please explain why a Constitutional Republic is the superior,

A constitutional republic is not superior but our Constitutional Republic was because the Constitution was written by very very wise men who correctly feared govt above all else.

In fact , the Bill of Rights was originally not included out of fear that if a govt was given the power to insure rights it would instead pervert that power to destroy right.

The dream of magical big govt has been a constant in human history only thanks to human ignorance.

Great response. I totally agree. Our founders did everything they could to protect the citizens of the USA but unscrupulous MEN have found various ways to reinterpret or misinterpret the Constitution to further their own power-hungry goals.

 

[Little-Acorn]

As for me, I favor the Constitution we have, and believe that we should do our best to "interpret" it in the same way the people who wrote it and ratified it, "interpreted" it. It calls out very few specifics, but provides a broad framework to run government... and gives the central government only very limited powers. If we want the central govt to have more power, we must follow its amendment procedure, or else REFUSE the government those additional powers.

Saying "I mostly support this paragraph, but believe we should allow some 'reasonable exceptions' to it", goes against what the Founders wanted. Where they wanted "reasonable exceptions", they said so, such as in the Bill of Rights where they occasionally inserted language such as "no person shall be be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Where they didn't insert such language, they intended for NO EXCEPTIONS to be made... and that is THE LAW.

I support modifying the Constitution, and eve throwing out parts of it, WHERE THE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED IN THE CONSTITUTION IS FOLLOWED. A politician or two saying, "Well, they didn't really mean it" is not following the procedure, and must be ignored.

If someone thinks some part of the Constitution is wrong or obsolete or etc., fine. Get 2/3 of each house of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree with you, and you can change it. Until you do that, YOU CAN'T. And you and I and everyone else must obey it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Please explain why a Constitutional Republic is the superior,

A constitutional republic is not superior but our Constitutional Republic was because the Constitution was written by very very wise men who correctly feared govt above all else.

In fact , the Bill of Rights was originally not included out of fear that if a govt was given the power to insure rights it would instead pervert that power to destroy right.

The dream of magical big govt has been a constant in human history only thanks to human ignorance.

Great response. I totally agree. Our founders did everything they could to protect the citizens of the USA but unscrupulous MEN have found various ways to reinterpret or misinterpret the Constitution to further their own power-hungry goals.

yes our Constitution was something new under the sun as Jefferson said but liberals lack the IQ to understand how freedom works so we are reverting back to liberalism, the very source of of mankind's bloody history!!

 

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, no, the Constitution is not perfect. It is merely far superior to any other document that was ever written to run a country.

Superior enough that we should be very cautious about changing any part of it. If we cannot get LARGE majorities to agree to the exact change to be made, then we should not change it at all, but should let it remain in its present (imperfect) form.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As for me, I favor the Constitution we have, and believe that we should do our best to "interpret" it in the same way the people who wrote it and ratified it, "interpreted" it.

Saying "I mostly support this paragraph, but believe we should allow some 'reasonable exceptions' to it", goes against what the Founders wanted. Where they wanted "reasonable exceptions", they said so, such as in the Bill of Rights where they occasionally inserted language such as "no person shall be be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Where they didn't insert such language, they intended for NO EXCEPTIONS to be made... and that is THE LAW.

I support modifying the Constitution, and eve throwing out parts of it, WHERE THE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED IN THE CONSTITUTION IS FOLLOWED. A politician or two saying, "Well, they didn't really mean it" is not following the procedure, and must be ignored.

If someone thinks some part of the Constitution is wrong or obsolete or etc., fine. Get 2/3 of each house of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree with you, and you can change it. Until you do that, YOU CAN'T. And you and I and everyone else must obey it.

the liberals cant do that so instead they interpret it any way they want to, and they always do it in a way that reverts our govt back to pre-civilized times.

 

[Little-Acorn]

A Constitutional republic is superior only if its Constitution is superior. And ours is, though it is not "perfect".

A constitution that mandated slavery, or prohibited the right to property (for example) would produce a very sad and inferior constitutional republic, one that would probably fail in a short time or collapse in massive bloody warfare. That would be an example of a Constitutional republic that is NOT superior, but which declined into a miserable failure.

Being a Constitutional republic, does not make your society or its government superior.
Having a GOOD Constitution, and sticking to it, is what makes your society and government superior.

We have such a superior Constitution. But we are failing more and more, to stick to it. For that reason, our society is becoming less and less "good". And it is conceivable that, if we continue to violate (or "creatively re-interpret") our Constitution, our society can still decline and eventually collapse.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But we are failing more and more, to stick to it. For that reason, our society is becoming less and less "good".

yes I agree but don't you think its important to identify liberals as the "we" who are not sticking with it because they lack the IQ to understand how freedom works??

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Where Do YOU Stand On The Constitution?"

Where one 'stands' on the Constitution is irrelevant.

The only thing relevant is the fact that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, and as codified by the Constitution in Articles III and VI.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion as to what the Constitution means, but he is not entitled to his own facts of Constitutional case law.

One is at liberty to disagree with the case law if he so desires, but he must also understand and accept the fact that Constitutional jurisprudence is the settled and accepted law of the land, binding on the states and citizens, until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Last, the Constitution is neither 'living' nor 'static,' it is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition dating back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II, and the doctrine of judicial review was practiced by Colonial courts for well over a century before the advent of the Foundation Era, where American citizens of the new Republic fully expected the courts to continue to review acts of Congress and the states and invalidate those offensive to the Founding Document.

 

[Little-Acorn]

But we are failing more and more, to stick to it. For that reason, our society is becoming less and less "good".

yes I agree but don't you think its important to identify liberals are the "we" who are not sticking with it because they lack the IQ to understand how freedom works??

That's around Step 5. I'm still on Step 2.

And non-liberals can also violate the Constitution, say by passing a permanent bill to continuously fund the armed services, that keeps renewing its funding requirements automatically. Or by ignoring the requirement that House members stand for election every two years, the President for four, and Senators for six.

There are lots of ways people of all political stripes can violate the Constitution... and endanger society as a result.

I believe that liberals are presently far more guilty of doing so, than conservatives. But that doesn't mean it will always be that way.

Eternal vigilance.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Where Do YOU Stand On The Constitution?"

Where one 'stands' on the Constitution is irrelevant.

The only thing relevant is the fact that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law

spoken like the true Communist you are!! Fortunately the Republicans on the court are very very concerned with what the Constitution actually says.!!