quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

2/3 of the States had to ratify the Prohibition amendment.
2/3 of the States had to ratify the repeal of Prohibition amendment.
Somewhere in those 14 years, the viewpoints of the voters flipped, no?

The first resulted from a decades' long anti-saloon, anti-immigrant campaign.
The second resulted from the mandate of the one-sided elections of 1932.
We cannot ignore the events and experiences that were not available to the Founders or to legislators who successfully posted a new Amendment or a Court Opinion.

quote:

I think we're at loggerheads over the use of the word "feelings." I used (and continue to use it) as a synonym for "sentiment."
A guy at work recently told me he grew up in the South, and was quite prejudiced against blacks. He defined himself a racist back then. After he moved up North as a teen, he started to be around more black people, where he saw the error of his earlier prejudice. He's no longer a racist. He's dating a black woman, even. I think you might agree that his "feelings" towards black folks changed, no? While this is just an anecdote, it does demonstrate my usage of "feelings."

I will accept "sentiment" if you will accept that intervening events, even inventions change sentiment. But, it is not only sentiment that is changed. Social structure and power also change. Your work friend underwent a social change, did he not?

quote:

The invention of the contraceptive pill had a long term impact on structure and power in our society. The Court found in Griswold v. Connecticut, unmarried couples were entitled to privacy (not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, but inferred from the Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments) This led to the permissability of abortions, as well as the striking of miscegenation and sodomy laws.

quote:

If it's unConstitutional now, it's always going to be unConstitutional, regardless of how people's sentiments change.

Well, we want our Laws to be Constitutional. The Constitution provides protections to us. However, that begs the question: by whose interpretation? It seems you would keep us in the straight jacket of the Founders' musings.

• 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: jlf1961

I am waiting to see how this unfolds, considering the following the fact that TSA employees do not have the necessary security clearance to examine any Federal Agency issued electronic devices simply because they may have classified material on the device.

Procedure dictates that a representative of the issuing agency be present when any electronic device owned and issued by that agency is examined by anyone outside the agency to prevent data being copied.

This applies to all Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.

Add to that they need more than just "Random Search" as a cause to want to look at the damn thing in the first place.

Bikkannavar could have been a real ass and told the guy that yeah, he will give him the pin, just as soon as a security officer from NASA arrived to supervise the examination.

Now that would have been funny as hell to watch, since the officer would have had to make the request through his supervisor, who would then have to make a nice phone call, and everyone would have had to wait for the security officer to arrive, and as soon as that Security guy found out it was for nothing more than a 'random search,' the shit would have truly hit the fan.

quote:

That's exactly what I'm saying. His feelings (sentiment) towards people of color has changed because his social framework through which he views people has changed.

quote:

The Constitution shouldn't be changeable simply because someone else interprets it differently. We have ways to know what was meant when it was written. It's not really all that necessary to "interpret" it one way or another.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

That's exactly what I'm saying. His feelings (sentiment) towards people of color has changed because his social framework through which he views people has changed.

Then, we agree on the importance of the social framework. Good.

quote:

quote:

The Constitution shouldn't be changeable simply because someone else interprets it differently. We have ways to know what was meant when it was written. It's not really all that necessary to "interpret" it one way or another.

The Preamble states . . . .
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
How shall we read: "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" without interpreting what Liberty means to us?

• 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:

Not exactly, unless we agree that the US Constitution can not be changed because of a change in the social framework.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

I have discussed the 2/3 (66%) also the 60% and also the simple majority - you are not talking about comrade trumps hilly bllly nominee to scrotus are some of you - please do :)

Roe v Quale
cake v muffin
waffle v malarkey

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Not exactly, unless we agree that the US Constitution can not be changed because of a change in the social framework.

It need not be changed because of a change of social framework but the social change may bring to light an unenumerated but fundamental "right." Such was the argument made for the right to privacy, which is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Is privacy a "new right?" or is it fundamental to the governed and did it arise to view through the imperatives of a unique social change as was argued against the contraceptive ban in Griswold?
The Ninth Amendment seems to give us common ground in our debate, don't you think?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
HERE is a pretty good discussion of Madison's thinking on it.
Let me know if we are not in agreement here. I would say my position has shifted somewhat. But, I still retain the need for proper interpretation arising out of innovative and/or disruptive social invention.

Not exactly, unless we agree that the US Constitution can not be changed because of through a change in the social framework.

quote:

One of the many points of contention between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was the Constitution’s lack of a bill of rights that would place specific limits on government power. Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.
<snip>
The Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power. For example, what the Founders saw as the natural right of individuals to speak and worship freely was protected by the First Amendment’s prohibitions on Congress from making laws establishing a religion or abridging freedom of speech. For another example, the natural right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in one’s home was safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements.

• 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:

While, strictly speaking, Madison was correct. But, as we have all seen, government has to be put in check against it's continual outward pressure to free it from it's shackles. I daresay the Anti-Federalists were more right than they were wrong in their arguments against the US Constitution, as it was written and ratified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

That's exactly what I'm saying. His feelings (sentiment) towards people of color has changed because his social framework through which he views people has changed.

Then, we agree on the importance of the social framework. Good.

Not exactly, unless we agree that the US Constitution can not be changed because of a change in the social framework.

quote:

quote:

The Constitution shouldn't be changeable simply because someone else interprets it differently. We have ways to know what was meant when it was written. It's not really all that necessary to "interpret" it one way or another.

The Preamble states . . . .
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
How shall we read: "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" without interpreting what Liberty means to us?

Considering the preamble doesn't carry force of law, it's specific interpretation isn't quite as important. However, since we didn't write the preamble, but a bunch of men over 200 years ago did, perhaps we interpret "Liberty" to mean what it would have meant to them?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

That's exactly what I'm saying. His feelings (sentiment) towards people of color has changed because his social framework through which he views people has changed.

Then, we agree on the importance of the social framework. Good.

Not exactly, unless we agree that the US Constitution can not be changed because of a change in the social framework.

quote:

quote:

The Constitution shouldn't be changeable simply because someone else interprets it differently. We have ways to know what was meant when it was written. It's not really all that necessary to "interpret" it one way or another.

The Preamble states . . . .
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
How shall we read: "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" without interpreting what Liberty means to us?

Considering the preamble doesn't carry force of law, it's specific interpretation isn't quite as important. However, since we didn't write the preamble, but a bunch of men over 200 years ago did, perhaps we interpret "Liberty" to mean what it would have meant to them?

Well, if you were correct about social framework, slavery would still be legal.

It can and does change, and even has a mechanism built in to accomplish that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

While, strictly speaking, Madison was correct. But, as we have all seen, government has to be put in check against it's continual outward pressure to free it from it's shackles. I daresay the Anti-Federalists were more right than they were wrong in their arguments against the US Constitution, as it was written and ratified.

I agree, history has demonstrated that the anti-federalists had made a sound case. Police interrogators had long used brutal (third degree) methods for obtaining confessions from suspected persons before Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964), which found that the Sixth Amendment required the assistance of counsel during interrogation although previously the interpretation had been counsel was mandated only at the start of judicial proceedings, and was formalized in police interrogation procedure by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
The discovery of these Rights was prompted by the emergence in the 1960s of a legal aid movement for indigent defendants, which I would argue comfortably had its genesis in the arrests of street protestors for Black Civil Rights in that era.
It is problematic to contend these unnuremated rights would have been brought to light had the Federalists prevailed in their conviction that the Bill of Rights was not necessary.
So, here we have rights which were exposed by the spotlight of social events. Your argument that the Constitution cannot be changed by new social frameworks may be true de jure but I find it ticky tacky because it is changed de facto by the trail of Case Law which arises from social change.
In that respect we disagree but I think our positions are pretty close.

• 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: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

That's exactly what I'm saying. His feelings (sentiment) towards people of color has changed because his social framework through which he views people has changed.

Then, we agree on the importance of the social framework. Good.

Not exactly, unless we agree that the US Constitution can not be changed because of a change in the social framework.

quote:

quote:

The Constitution shouldn't be changeable simply because someone else interprets it differently. We have ways to know what was meant when it was written. It's not really all that necessary to "interpret" it one way or another.

The Preamble states . . . .
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
How shall we read: "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" without interpreting what Liberty means to us?

Considering the preamble doesn't carry force of law, it's specific interpretation isn't quite as important. However, since we didn't write the preamble, but a bunch of men over 200 years ago did, perhaps we interpret "Liberty" to mean what it would have meant to them?

Well, if you were correct about social framework, slavery would still be legal.
It can and does change, and even has a mechanism built in to accomplish that.

• 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

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

While, strictly speaking, Madison was correct. But, as we have all seen, government has to be put in check against it's continual outward pressure to free it from it's shackles. I daresay the Anti-Federalists were more right than they were wrong in their arguments against the US Constitution, as it was written and ratified.

I agree, history has demonstrated that the anti-federalists had made a sound case. Police interrogators had long used brutal (third degree) methods for obtaining confessions from suspected persons before Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964), which found that the Sixth Amendment required the assistance of counsel during interrogation although previously the interpretation had been counsel was mandated only at the start of judicial proceedings, and was formalized in police interrogation procedure by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
The discovery of these Rights was prompted by the emergence in the 1960s of a legal aid movement for indigent defendants, which I would argue comfortably had its genesis in the arrests of street protestors for Black Civil Rights in that era.
It is problematic to contend these unnuremated rights would have been brought to light had the Federalists prevailed in their conviction that the Bill of Rights was not necessary.
So, here we have rights which were exposed by the spotlight of social events. Your argument that the Constitution cannot be changed by new social frameworks may be true de jure but I find it ticky tacky because it is changed de facto by the trail of Case Law which arises from social change.
In that respect we disagree but I think our positions are pretty close.

I'm sure we still disagree on a lot of stuff regarding the Constitution; how it's interpreted, and how it's applied. In your example, case law didn't change the Constitution.

Reinterpreting the words and phrases of the Constitution in a way that is opposite the intention of the Framers, is still not a valid way to change the Constitution, imo.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
However, it is an historic practice. By what imaginable process could it be changed?

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