|
slvemike4u -> RE: Obamaphobe "secession" & "armed rebellion" movements (11/15/2012 8:26:07 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: graceadieu
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: graceadieu
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are living documents, open to interpretation. How they're interpreted by the Supreme Court and followed by Congress and the Executive branch have been changing and evolving for over 200 years, as the world changes and new challenges and questions arise. Getting up in arms now because our government and laws aren't the same as they were in 1789 is absurd.
"Living" document? Not really. Amendable? Certainly. Was it designed to be changed simply by changing interpretation? I highly doubt it. Basing a system of laws on something that can be changed simply by time's alteration of word usage is probably one of the dumbest ideas ever.
That's too bad. The power of judicial review does in fact give the Supreme Court the power and duty to interpret the Constitution and apply to judge the constitutionality of the law.
And that interpretation - and thus the law - has not been constant over the years. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are, at times, quite vague and open to many interpretations. What is an "unreasonable" search? What punishments are "cruel and unusual"? How far does the Federal Government's power to regulate interstate commerce go? Etc etc.
The first two of your examples there are purely subjective, and depend on the merits of each particular case. What is unreasonable, cruel or unusual can be different based on those merits. As far as Government's power to regulate interstate commerce? That should not be subjective. There is a reason it was put in the Constitution. It was put in there for them to referee economic/trade/tariff/etc. disputes between/among States, not to regulate a Citizen's business transaction that crossed State lines. That redefining of "interstate" is a perfect example of how the Government of the US Constitution has grown past it's boundaries.
quote:
I don't think that flexibility is dumb. I think it's been part of our success, because we can change with the times while still preserving our rights and (at least some) limits on government power.
There is a way to change the Constitution. It isn't easy. Nor should it be. To simply change the way a word is used is a dumb way to base laws. If a law stated, "Bad people should be shot," Muhammad Ali could have been shot. He even bragged about being a "baaaaad man." Now, you can say that someone is a bad ass. Should that person be shot, according to the law? Bad took on a new connotation that isn't consistent with the usage the law was written.
Can you not see how basing laws on shiftable things leads to the inability to know what the laws are?
quote:
quote:
Regardless of how the times change, the US Constitution can be followed according to the original interpretations of how it was written (including the Amendments since passed).
Which original interpretation? Hamilton's? Jefferson's? The Founding Fathers couldn't even agree on how to interpret the Constitution, and they came up with it!
(Edited to clear up quote tag fail)
There sure seemed to be an interpretation from the Founders, called The Federalist Papers. It's a defense of the Constitution and gives quite a detailed reasoning behind what it meant, what was intended, and why.
Wow,when you make a compelling argument like this...I mean you even used Muhammad Ali there ,I'm sold.
I'm switching sides...The Constitution is a dead,dead,dead document [8|]
|
|
|
|
