quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

WATCH: No One Was More Devastated By Obama's Win 

I don`t know.......the reaction was pretty much the same across the board......almost word for word.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
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

I can't use Ali in an example?

Who said it was dead? I certainly did not. I'm all for the Constitution to be updated, as long as it's done the way it is supposed to be done. It's supposed to be amended, not re-interpreted with altered word definitions/usages. That'w where I take issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
When asked what was the biggest misconception about her husband, former President George W. Bush, during his time in office, Laura Bush said, "That he was a heedless cowboy character."

Implying that all the talk of him being a complete idiot was not a misconception.....

You have it backwards.

Rephrase -

"That he was a heedless cowboy character" was the biggest misconception.

I've always known libs have a hard time reading.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu
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.

quote:

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:

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.

quote:

Can you not see how basing laws on shiftable things leads to the inability to know what the laws are?

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The 1770s was a time of coming together and compromise.   Oh, there were some hellova fights back then as well, but they perservered to build the country.

Offhand, the whiskey rebellion.  The signing of the constitution and ratification some twelve years later on the promise, even later of the bill of rights for states.  Just a promise by men of good faith with men of good faith.

And we tarriffed, and taxed only businesses and landholders.  (the army coming from the people, that was mostly their tax).

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu
Sure. Like I said, Alexander Hamilton (and the Federalists) had one interpretation of the Constitution and what our country should be about.
But I find it pretty funny that you bring up the Federalists, since they advocated that we should have 1) a strong central government, 2) judicial review over the law, 3) that the Constitution was and should be flexible and 4) it gave implied powers to the Federal government that aren't explictly stated in it.
You're arguing against yourself here.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
What's the difference between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists?

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
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

I can't use Ali in an example?

Who said it was dead? I certainly did not. I'm all for the Constitution to be updated, as long as it's done the way it is supposed to be done. It's supposed to be amended, not re-interpreted with altered word definitions/usages. That'w where I take issue.

No one is reinterpreting it with altered word definitions/usages.
What is meant when someone says the Constitution is a living document is this.:
Situations arise that the founders could have had no inkling of,somehow someway the Document must be read so as to apply to those situations....that is the beauty of the Document ,it was/is vague enough,elastic enough,that it can still,thru interpretation be relevant for all of todays issues and problems.
To deny this is to deny the genius of the Founders.
Is that what you wish to do,deny that they were genius's?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

That is exactly my concern also Yachtie. I get it that some interpretation is always going to be required when attempting to apply a written document to the real world. I get it that that is the job of the supreme court. But at some point of stretching "interpretation" turns into "total rewrite".

We could also talk about citizen's united. I, for one, cannot believe even for a moment that our founding father's thought that businesses ought to be people or to be treated like people. They aren't people and they don't behave like people. Then again, these are the sorts of problems that crop up in general when a citizen no longer trusts his government. At that point, really, there's nothing the government is going to be able to do. And given how hard our elected officials work to prove that they are total lying scumbags it's no surprise nobody trusts them. In the end, we are getting the government we vote for... knowingly. It hardly matters whether you vote for the red lying scumbag or the blue one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
What's the difference between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists?

One of the major differences between the Fedralist and the Anti-Federalists was that the major leaders of the Anti-Federalist movement felt that their individual state should effectively rule the other states.

For example, Samuel Adams, a leading Anti-Federalst, opposed the Constitution because it did not specifically forbid any religion other than New England Calivinism. As a New England Calvinist (his contemporaries often called him "The Last Puritan") he wanted the United States government to be some form of a Calvinist theocracy. He favored independence from England primarily because he felt it was against the will of God to be ruled by the satanistic Church of England, not just because of taxes. He broke off relations with his cousin, John Adams, because John Adams had written religious tolerance into the Massachusetts state constitution.

Another leading Anti-Federalist, Patrick Henry, opposed the Constitution because it did not give his state, Virginia, veto power over all the other states.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

We could also talk about citizen's united. I, for one, cannot believe even for a moment that our founding father's thought that businesses ought to be people or to be treated like people. They aren't people and they don't behave like people.

quote:

Was that decision predicated upon an actual affect to interstate commerce or government policy relating to the depression?

quote:

Welcome to Missibama
If Election Day was that bad, secede indeed


Calm down. No need for revolution or succumbing to the ''homosexual agenda.'' Why follow Brown to the Middle East when we can far more easily bring some notion of it to North America?

This is where Missibama comes in. And, to be clear, I'm not the first to coin the term. Though unlike one blogger – Rafi D'Angelo who'd just as soon eliminate these Gulf Coast gems – I say hand them over. Considering that since Election Day, the secessionist movement has gone into overdrive, there are loads of people who no longer want to be a part of these United States. So let's set aside these two (because I'm not willing to give up Austin or New Orleans) very red states and bring in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico to take their place.

Brown, Delgaudio, Perkins and everyone else who has come to find the U.S. unbearable can make Missibama in their image. It will be a sovereign Judeo-Christian nation, where the penalty for abortion is death, homosexuality is once again a criminal mental disorder and prisoners can do the work that migrant labor once handled. Grover Norquist could be treasurer. Rick Santorum could be the first president. The U.S. left behind wouldn't have to worry much about Missibama, save for the refugee camps we'd need to set up at the border to help those fleeing, which would likely include Mississippi's Constance McMillen, the gay teen of canceled-prom fame.

Complete essay at Metro Weekly