The Constitution

[wileythekid]

Do people really think we're getting farther away from the constitution? It just doesn't make that much sense to me when people say this

[Republicanman]

That's a big of a vague question, really. If you're meaning the Legislative or Executive branch, then I think it safe to say that, compared to what Originalists would claim, our current federal government is eons away from how government operated in 1788. However, this isn't simply a recent trend.

It all depends on how you define Constitutional interpretation. The prevailing theory (though this has lessened a bit) is the idea of a" Living Constitution", where the three branches of government must adapt the text to societal changes.

On the other hand, Originalists believe, depending on whom you ask, that one must interpret either the Framer's original intent, or the Constitutional text's original meaning, in legalistic terms.

[bridgeofeldin]

Bill O'Reilly thinks so

Shooting Down the Constitution (http://www.billoreilly.com/column?pid=29816)

[xemilylovespopx]

Absolutely are people getting away from the Constitution. Congress and the President are far away from their original constitutional powers. However, this is not a bad thing in my opinion but certain balances are being overlooked which definitely need to be fixed.

[Republicanman]

How exactly is this not a bad thing? Wouldn't "getting away from the Constitution" essentially undermine the rule of law?

[xemilylovespopx]

That is the argument that the base of the tea party makes as most of them are Constitutionalists (except the really loud ones like Angle, Palin, etc). And yes, essentially the rule of the constitution is being undermined, but certainly not broken. The constitution is extremely vague as I'm sure you are away and leaves many holes that have been filled usually by tradition. However, it is a bad then when the checks and balances are becoming lopsided such as they are now (as well as with the Bush administration) as they can totally overrule the constitution and ignore it. [this also happened with the peak of the Communist scare, with warrantless wiretaps, etc]

[Republicanman]

If the rule of law is undermined, then it is essentially broken. The Constitution is specific on certain points (such as the First Amendment), and perhaps vague on others (such as the Fourteenth Amendment). However, the specific enumerations of what Congress may and may not do dictate to us that the Framers did believe in a limited rule of law. Such specific legalities can be deduced to their logical end without judicial activism based on generational relativism.

You speak of 4th Amendment infringements, which of course still happen today (with Lone Wolf Provisions and NSLs). But these are simply one section of jurisprudence gone wrong.

[xemilylovespopx]

The constitution is extremely vague. For instance, it specifies that the number of representatives may not exceed no more than one per 30,000. Yet we have about 500,000-700,000 per one representative. The constitution does not specify how we get that number, just that there is no more than 1 representative per 30,000 people. Specifics like that happen all throughout the constitution. That is what I was referring to.

[Republicanman]

In 1911, Congress passed legislation that changed the apportionment method and also ultimately fixed the number of Representatives at 435.

[Love As Arson]

Why wouldn't we want to get away from a document written primarily for white aristocrats?

[GeeBee]

I love that the same conservatives that rail against the idea that the constitution is a "living document" also cling to one specific AMENDMENT quite fervently.

[iheartmusic043]

I believe that people who think of government should be based on soley the constitution are equal to Christians who belive that Christians have to live by the Bible. I believe that both the Constituation and the Bible did not account for modern times and situations.

[fightinirish217]

Taking an "American Constitution" class this coming fall semester. I'll get back to you.

[greenteaallday]

People confuse getting away from the constitution with changes to life in the future. It is a living breathing document.

To look at the constitution from the perspective of the day it was written is just ignorant. Unfortunately a lot of people are ignorant.

[Sean Rizzo]

I love that the same conservatives that rail against the idea that the constitution is a "living document" also cling to one specific AMENDMENT quite fervently.
Do you think the founding fathers were less passionate about gun rights? The Bill of Rights was penned by James Madison, supported by Thomas Jefferson, and signed into law by George Washington. Certainly there was no disagreement amongst these amendments by the original intent of the founders, otherwise it wouldn't have been ratified.

[open mind]

the constitution is an adaptable document by design because the people who ratified it knew they didn't have all the answers.

[Sean Rizzo]

the constitution is an adaptable document by design because the people who ratified it knew they didn't have all the answers.
/why we have an amendment process.

This modern use of usurpation, however, is not good.

[saysmydoctor]

Why wouldn't we want to get away from a document written primarily for white aristocrats?
This.

[the sky below]

farther away, manipulating it, completely make up shit about it. but i'm a canadian, so i really don't really know too much.

I do know that this letter, however, is fucking hilarious.
http://rationalists.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/sarah-palin-u-s-law-should-be-based-on-the-bible/

[saysmydoctor]

Do you think the founding fathers were less passionate about gun rights? The Bill of Rights was penned by James Madison, supported by Thomas Jefferson, and signed into law by George Washington. Certainly there was no disagreement amongst these amendments by the original intent of the founders, otherwise it wouldn't have been ratified.
What's your point? The Founding Fathers are not infallible.

[GeeBee]

Do you think the founding fathers were less passionate about gun rights? The Bill of Rights was penned by James Madison, supported by Thomas Jefferson, and signed into law by George Washington. Certainly there was no disagreement amongst these amendments by the original intent of the founders, otherwise it wouldn't have been ratified.

You're missing the point of my post. It's ironic that those people rail against anyone trying to apply the Constitution in changing times cling to one of those very changes.

[Sean Rizzo]

What's your point? The Founding Fathers are not infallible.
Neither are certain executives who would force me to purchase something I don't want, and abuse the system to do it because it fundamentally disagrees with their warped views. Again, this is why we have an extensively balanced amendment process.

You're missing the point of my post. It's ironic that those people rail against anyone trying to apply the Constitution in changing times cling to one of those very changes.
My point was that it wasn't really a change because the rights had already been in line with the original intent. That's why the amendments were ratified so quickly and why they still exist today.

[open mind]

/why we have an amendment process.

This modern use of usurpation, however, is not good.

do you care to provide some examples of modern "usurpation"?

[open mind]

My point was that it wasn't really a change because the rights had already been in line with the original intent.

original intent does not override modern reality.
the founders of this country knew this, which is why they created such a malleable document.

i'm pretty buzzed at the moment and may be talking out of my ass a result......but i'll ride this argument as far as i can.

[Sean Rizzo]

do you care to provide some examples of modern "usurpation"?
Judicial activism, and legislation by regulation.

[open mind]

Judicial activism, and legislation by regulation.

those aren't examples, they're soundbites.

[Sean Rizzo]

original intent does not override modern reality.
the founders of this country knew this, which is why they created such a malleable document.
"Modern reality" begs us to abandon gun rights? You've obviously never had a home intrusion. A realistic scope of the nature of crime is all that's needed to take this down.

[Sean Rizzo]

those aren't examples, they're soundbites.
Are you sure about that? I'd rather not go back and cite individual examples of each when you can read about the concepts, as the sheer number would make it take far too long.

[open mind]

"Modern reality" begs us to abandon gun rights? You've obviously never had a home intrusion. A realistic scope of the nature of crime is all that's needed to take this down.

i'm a firm believer in the gun rights. last i checked the courts were making decisions enforcing them and there's no serious current legislative threat to the second amendment.

as for the home intrusion bit, i had my apartment broken into when i was 18 and several thousand dollars worth of my stuff was stolen.

[open mind]

Are you sure about that? I'd rather not go back and cite individual examples of each when you can read about the concepts, as the sheer number would make it take far too long.

if you're going to present an argument the onus is on you to provide proof to back it.

[Sean Rizzo]

i'm a firm believer in the gun rights. last i checked the courts were making decisions enforcing them and there's no current legislative threat to the second amendment.
There are locally, they just aren't being challenged.

if you're going to present an argument the onus is on you to provide proof to back it.
Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas.

Some also say Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board, although I agree with both of these. That said, the method of achieving that end may not have been constitutional.

[open mind]

There are locally, they just aren't being challenged.


Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas.

weren't gun bans in d.c. and chicago recently deemed unconstitutional?

how do those cases screw with the constitution exactly? i'm not being sarcastic, i've heard of the last 2 but i'm not very familiar with them.

[GeeBee]

Neither are certain executives who would force me to purchase something I don't want, and abuse the system to do it because it fundamentally disagrees with their warped views. Again, this is why we have an extensively balanced amendment process.


My point was that it wasn't really a change because the rights had already been in line with the original intent. That's why the amendments were ratified so quickly and why they still exist today.

Wow. A soundbyte and a speculatory statement, both packaged as fact.

[saysmydoctor]

Neither are certain executives who would force me to purchase something I don't want, and abuse the system to do it because it fundamentally disagrees with their warped views. Again, this is why we have an extensively balanced amendment process.
Cool story, never said they were.

[Sean Rizzo]

weren't gun bans in d.c. and chicago recently deemed unconstitutional?

how do those cases screw with the constitution exactly? i'm not being sarcastic, i've heard of the last 2 but i'm not very familiar with them.
First, yes. But there are other bans in other cities/states which need to be challenged that haven't been.

Second, Griswold v. Connecticut ruled that there was a right to privacy. It was not the Court's place to create a right on its own. The ninth amendment allows for the protection of rights not given in the Constitution but does not give the Court the power to create them. this should have been done through the conventional amendment process.

Roe v. Wade ruled that anti-abortion laws were unconstitutional based on this same right to privacy that was incorrectly created from the start. Furthermore, neither anti-abortion laws or pro-abortion (under the circumstances given in Roe v. Wade, namely, rape, incest, life of the mother threatened) laws are unconstitutional. The correct step here would have been to repeal the law in question rather than declaring it unconstitutional. The same reasoning here applies to Lawrence v. Texas.

Wow. A soundbyte and a speculatory statement, both packaged as fact.
Not sure what exactly you're referring to is what.

[saysmydoctor]

The right to privacy is pretty much implied. For instance, your right not be searched and seized at the cop's leisure. Or have troops forced to be housed in your home.

[Love As Arson]

I wonder how long it would've taken minorities to get rights if we followed the strict constructionist point of view.

[open mind]

First, yes. But there are other bans in other cities/states which need to be challenged that haven't been.

Second, Griswold v. Connecticut ruled that there was a right to privacy. It was not the Court's place to create a right on its own. The ninth amendment allows for the protection of rights not given in the Constitution but does not give the Court the power to create them. this should have been done through the conventional amendment process.

Roe v. Wade ruled that anti-abortion laws were unconstitutional based on this same right to privacy that was incorrectly created from the start. Furthermore, neither anti-abortion laws or pro-abortion (under the circumstances given in Roe v. Wade, namely, rape, incest, life of the mother threatened) laws are unconstitutional. The correct step here would have been to repeal the law in question rather than declaring it unconstitutional. The same reasoning here applies to Lawrence v. Texas.


so you're against privacy and believe it's unconstitutional? i don't think i can agree with that position.

incorrectly created? why is the judicial branch of government automatically a lesser branch then the legislative and executive branches? because you don't like it?

[Sean Rizzo]

so you're against privacy and believe it's unconstitutional? i don't think i can agree with that position.

incorrectly created? why is the judicial branch of government automatically a lesser branch then the legislative and executive branches? because you don't like it?
1. I never said the right itself was unconstitutional, I said the method by which it was declared constitutional is unconstitutional.

2.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Inalienable rights are provided as parts of the Constitution itself, through amendments. The amendment process does not include the Court. I would assume this is because the founders feared a Supreme Court with too much power posed the threat of oligarchy.

[Matt Chylak]

Do you think the founding fathers were less passionate about gun rights? The Bill of Rights was penned by James Madison, supported by Thomas Jefferson, and signed into law by George Washington. Certainly there was no disagreement amongst these amendments by the original intent of the founders, otherwise it wouldn't have been ratified.

they probably weren't thinking about all the types of guns that are currently available. i also doubt they meant for us to be able to bring them everywhere.

[Scrandon]

My point was that it wasn't really a change because the rights had already been in line with the original intent. That's why the amendments were ratified so quickly and why they still exist today.

"The amendments" you are referring to are only the first 10 of 26. All of the rest were changes that have happened since.

For example, the right for anyone other than a white landholding male to vote.

[open mind]

1. I never said the right itself was unconstitutional, I said the method by which it was declared constitutional is unconstitutional.

2.

Inalienable rights are provided as parts of the Constitution itself, through amendments. The amendment process does not include the Court. I would assume this is because the founders feared a Supreme Court with too much power posed the threat of oligarchy.

so you're for privacy but want it thrown out because it wasn't secured the way you'd prefer? no offense but that seems incredibly backwards to me.

amendments are a form of law. the judicial system deals exclusively with the law. why should a branch of government that only deals with law not be able to make clear what the law is?

[Sean Rizzo]

they probably weren't thinking about all the types of guns that are currently available. i also doubt they meant for us to be able to bring them everywhere.
I fail to see a problem here at all. Any sort of regulation on any type of gun is constitutional, you just can't outright ban ownership of any type of them in any place. I'm pretty sure this was how the Court ruled recently with the gun laws.

[Sean Rizzo]

"The amendments" you are referring to are only the first 10 of 26. All of the rest were changes that have happened since.

For example, the right for anyone other than a white landholding male to vote.
I don't see your point here.

[Sean Rizzo]

so you're for privacy but want it thrown out because it wasn't secured the way you'd prefer? no offense but that seems incredibly backwards to me.

amendments are a form of law. the judicial system deals exclusively with the law. why should a branch of government that only deals with law not be able to make clear what the law is?
The executive and legislative branches don't deal exclusively with the law as well?

[Scrandon]

You said that the amendments haven't really changed anything from the original intent of the Framers.

My point was that it wasn't really a change because the rights had already been in line with the original intent. That's why the amendments were ratified so quickly and why they still exist today.

I don't see your point here.

I'm pointing out that there have been some pretty huge changes put into effect by amending the Constitution.

[open mind]

The executive and legislative branches don't deal exclusively with the law as well?

nope. they make deals with private companies to provide needed services, they create organizations that provide needed services, they have the power to declare and continue war, and they have a habit of breaking the law.

[Sean Rizzo]

You said that the amendments haven't really changed anything from the original intent of the Framers.

I'm pointing out that there have been some pretty huge changes put into effect by amending the Constitution.
In reference to your previous post, that's only a "change" from the original intent if you believe the founders to be racists.

nope. they make deals with private companies to provide needed services, they create organizations that provide needed services, they have the power to declare and continue war, and they have a habit of breaking the law.
Constitutionally, each of the three branches deal exclusively with the law.

1. They are not forced to make deals with anyone by a Constitutional restraint, in fact it's the opposite.

2. They create these organizations based on and in line with current law.

3. The power to declare war is authorized by Congress through law.

4. The Constitution does not mandate them to break the law because it is the law. They do this by their own accord regardless of their elected position and personal responsibility in dealing exclusively with the law.

But, for the sake of being the devil's advocate, is your own reasoning not equally applicable to the Supreme Court?

[Matt Chylak]

I fail to see a problem here at all. Any sort of regulation on any type of gun is constitutional, you just can't outright ban any type of them. I'm pretty sure this was how the Court ruled recently with the gun laws.

i have no idea what decision you're (vaguely) talking about, but if it has anything to do with mcdonald v chicago, let me know and we'll talk.

[open mind]

That's only a "change" from the original intent if you believe the founders to be racists.


Constitutionally, each of the three branches deal exclusively with the law.

1. They are not forced to make deals with anyone by a Constitutional restraint, in fact it's the opposite.

2. They create these organizations based on and in line with current law.

3. The power to declare war is authorized by Congress through law.

4. The Constitution does not mandate them to break the law because it is the law. They do this by their own accord regardless of their elected position and personal responsibility in dealing exclusively with the law.

But, for the sake of being the devil's advocate, is your own reasoning not equally applicable to the Supreme Court?

the founders were slave owning, land stealing, pricks. try and prove otherwise.

just because one is working within the law does not mean that they are addressing the law.

[Sean Rizzo]

i have no idea what decision you're (vaguely) talking about, but if it has anything to do with mcdonald v chicago, let me know and we'll talk.
Yeah, that's the one. One of the regulations in question during the case was about a broad ban of ownership regarding handguns.

[Scrandon]

In reference to your previous post, that's only a "change" from the original intent if you believe the founders to be racists.


Well in determining who is able to vote the phrase "white landholding male" sounds pretty dang racist to me. It's no big deal, I'm not spitting upon the Framers, it was the culture of the time period. Thankfully, society has progressed, people have changed, and the Constitution has been correspondingly improved.

[Sean Rizzo]

the founders were slave owning, land stealing, pricks. try and prove otherwise.

just because one is working within the law does not mean that they are addressing the law.
1. Just because they owned slaves does not mean they were treated poorly or inhumanely, or not regarded as human beings. But this argument is entirely speculative on both sides.

2. How is that possible?

Also, before we keep going. Thanks for not throwing insults around, that's the main reason why I don't post in here. :-)

[Sean Rizzo]

Well in determining who is able to vote the phrase "white landholding male" sounds pretty dang racist to me. It's no big deal, I'm not spitting upon the Framers, it was the culture of the time period. Thankfully, society has progressed, people have changed, and the Constitution has been correspondingly improved.
It's been widely stated that the reason the Framers didn't abolish slavery directly in the Constitution was so that the union could be preserved so that it could be done at a later time. Which it was.

[Matt Chylak]

Yeah, that's the one. One of the regulations in question during the case was about a broad ban of ownership regarding handguns.

but going back to my original point, dc v heller made a distinction between weapons "in common use at the time" (i.e. handguns) and weapons considered dangerous and unusual

[Sean Rizzo]

but going back to my original point, dc v heller made a distinction between weapons "in common use at the time" (i.e. handguns) and weapons considered dangerous and unusual
Considering it was 2008, automatic weapons were also "in common use at the time". Matter of fact, I know plenty of people who legally own AK-47s.

Weapons considered dangerous and unusual (to me, unusual implies "not a blade/firearm") are likely ones of mass destruction, eg nukes/missiles/bio weapons.

[Scrandon]

the founders were slave owning, land stealing, pricks. try and prove otherwise.

Chill the fuck out, dude. Every culture has had it's fair share of embarrassments. It's a well known fact of history, and for you to sit there with you historical arrogance and holier that thou attitude in full force shows how damn ignorant you really are.
It's been widely stated that the reason the Framers didn't abolish slavery directly in the Constitution was so that the union could be preserved so that it could be done at a later time. Which it was.

Stop forcing the slavery issue. Women weren't allowed to vote either, that's a change! Would you like me to go on? I could find 12 other amendments that have changed the Constitution and have nothing to do with slavery.

[open mind]

1. Just because they owned slaves does not mean they were treated poorly or inhumanely, or not regarded as human beings. But this argument is entirely speculative on both sides.

2. How is that possible?

Also, before we keep going. Thanks for not throwing insults around, that's the main reason why I don't post in here. :-)

i'm not much for throwing insults around unless they're thrown at me first but i'm tempted to right now because arguing that you can OWN someone because they have different skin is the definition of racist whether or not you treat them with all respect.
england had treaties with the native american tribes that lived along the borders of the colonies not to go into their land, the revolution (in the minds of colonists) voided those treaties and (by their logic and those that followed) allowed them to forcibly take the north american continent.

following the law is neither making law or enforcing it.

[Sean Rizzo]

Stop forcing the slavery issue. Women weren't allowed to vote either, that's a change! Would you like me to go on? I could find 12 other amendments that have changed the Constitution and have nothing to do with slavery.
I didn't know I was forcing anything, just giving reasoning. I would argue the founders considered the word "men" to encompass all of mankind. However, I can see some malcontents being sexist and making a constitutional argument on poorly clarified language.

[Matt Chylak]

Considering it was 2008, automatic weapons were also "in common use at the time". Matter of fact, I know plenty of people who legally own AK-47s.

Weapons considered dangerous and unusual (to me, unusual implies "not a blade/firearm") are likely ones of mass destruction, eg nukes/missiles/bio weapons.

there's a huge difference between people legally owning weapons and "common use," when we're talking about carrying them in public vs private property

[open mind]

Chill the fuck out, dude. Every culture has had it's fair share of embarrassments. It's a well known fact of history, and for you to sit there with you historical arrogance and holier that thou attitude in full force shows how damn ignorant you really are.


every culture? i don't recall the eskimos or the navajos going on a continent wide rampage that nearly wiped out those who weren't the same color as them. only agricultural cultures that have grown populations large enough to require the theft of others lands have taken part in such travesties.

i'm ignorant? surely you jest.

[DJWildefire]

Chill the fuck out, dude. Every culture has had it's fair share of embarrassments. It's a well known fact of history, and for you to sit there with you historical arrogance and holier that thou attitude in full force shows how damn ignorant you really are.


Stop forcing the slavery issue. Women weren't allowed to vote either, that's a change! Would you like me to go on? I could find 12 other amendments that have changed the Constitution and have nothing to do with slavery.
I believe Prince of Light was arguing with you about you calling the Founding Fathers racist as that was the point he quoted you on,

[Sean Rizzo]

i'm not much for throwing insults around unless they're thrown at me first but i'm tempted to right now because arguing that you can OWN someone because they have different skin is the definition of racist whether or not you treat them with all respect.
england had treaties with the native american tribes that lived along the borders of the colonies not to go into their land, the revolution (in the minds of colonists) voided those treaties and (by their logic and those that followed) allowed them to forcibly take the north american continent.

following the law is neither making law or enforcing it.
I would disagree that the Founders "owned" slaves. Technically under the laws at the time they may have, but that does not mean they weren't receiving pay or wouldn't be allowed to be freed if they desired it. And that's all that's necessary to invalidate slavery under current law. Work with pay, and freedom to leave. It's really just a matter of infrastructure.

In the minds of the colonists, but not necessarily the founding fathers. The puritans believed the native americans were heathen and drove them out by their own accord. If there were any institutionalized instances of this, they certainly weren't constitutional. Furthermore, at the time, society condemned the native americans as not being human. This was incorrectly supported constitutionally again because of poorly clarified language regarding race. Because of what I discussed before with the slavery issue, the founders chose to leave slavery (and thereby race issues) to a later date.

Following the law is self-enforcement.

[Scrandon]

every culture? i don't recall the eskimos or the navajos going on a continent wide rampage that nearly wiped out those who weren't the same color as them. only agricultural cultures that have grown populations large enough to require the theft of others lands have taken part in such travesties.

i'm ignorant? surely you jest.

I didn't say all cultures have done the same thing, I said they all have their fair share of embarrassments. Eskimos sent out their elderly on ice floats to die. That's pretty fucking ridiculous. Anyway, I'm not here to hate on cultures but apparently you have brought me down to your level.

The point is that if you had been conditioned your whole life to believe that a particular race was inferior to yours, and no scientific evidence existed to prove the contrary, you would undoubtedly follow suit in racist traditions. Furthermore, your completely self-righteous attitude sprouts from a series of events that you yourself had absolutely no part in, which I find hilarious.

[Sean Rizzo]

there's a huge difference between people legally owning weapons and "common use," when we're talking about carrying them in public vs private property
Regulations on carrying them in public is fine, Matt. haha.

The issue in question here was about an outright ban of owning them on private property inside city limits.

[Scrandon]

I didn't know I was forcing anything, just giving reasoning. I would argue the founders considered the word "men" to encompass all of mankind. However, I can see some malcontents being sexist and making a constitutional argument on poorly clarified language.

So you're gonna sit there and argue that nothing has changed since the Constitution has been written? Well I'm not willing to have an argument with someone who ignores facts.

[Scrandon]

I believe Prince of Light was arguing with you about you calling the Founding Fathers racist as that was the point he quoted you on,

I am fully aware of the discussion that is taking place, thank you.

[Republicanman]

The second Amendment does nothing to address where people may or may not carry their firearms. All it did, until McDonald was to prohibit the federal government from interfering in a person's natural right to defend oneself (bearing arms is simply a step in doing so.

Even after McDonald, where the second Amendment was incorporated into the state, the question of who can carry a gun and where they can carry it remains unanswered.

[Sean Rizzo]

So you're gonna sit there and argue that nothing has changed since the Constitution has been written? Well I'm not willing to have an argument with someone who ignores facts.
Society's views have, the original intent of the Constitution has not.

[Matt Chylak]

Regulations on carrying them in public is fine, Matt. haha.

The issue in question here was about an outright ban of owning them on private property inside city limits.

right, and if you look at NRA v Chicago, it looks like they going to get hung up on a federal/state seperation

[Republicanman]

Society's views have, the original intent of the Constitution has not.

I think you mean the original meaning of the Constitution has not.

But I agree with you that, regardless of Society's views, that doesn't give the judiciary the authority to simply update language as they see fit. The Supreme Court is not a legislative body.

[Scrandon]

Society's views have, the original intent of the Constitution has not.


# Amendments Proposal date Enactment date Full text
1st Freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and petition. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text
2nd Enumerates the right to keep and bear arms September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text
3rd Bans forced quartering of soldiers. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text
4th Interdiction of unreasonable searches and seizures; a search warrant is required to search persons or property. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text
5th Indictments; due process; self-incrimination; double jeopardy; rules for eminent domain. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text
6th Rights to a fair and speedy public trial, to a notice of accusations, to confront the accuser, to subpoenas, and to counsel. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text
7th Provides for the right to trial by jury in civil cases. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text
8th Bans cruel and unusual punishment, and excessive fines or bail September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text
9th Unenumerated rights September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text
10th Limits the powers of the federal government to only those specifically granted by the constitution. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text
11th Immunity of states from suits from out-of-state citizens and foreigners not living within the state borders. Lays the foundation for sovereign immunity. March 4, 1794 February 7, 1795 Full text
12th Revises presidential election procedures. December 9, 1803 June 15, 1804 Full text
13th Abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. January 31, 1865 December 6, 1865 Full text
14th Defines citizenship and deals with post–Civil War issues. June 13, 1866 July 9, 1868 Full text
15th Prohibits the denial of suffrage based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. February 26, 1869 February 3, 1870 Full text
16th Allows the federal government to collect income tax. July 12, 1909 February 3, 1913 Full text
17th Allows senators to be directly elected. May 13, 1912 April 8, 1913 Full text
18th Prohibition of alcohol (Repealed by Twenty-first Amendment) December 18, 1917 January 16, 1919 Full text
19th Allows for women's suffrage. June 4, 1919 August 18, 1920 Full text
20th Fixes the dates of term commencements for Congress (January 3) and the President (January 20); known as the "lame duck amendment". March 2, 1932 January 23, 1933 Full text
21st Repeals the Eighteenth Amendment. February 20, 1933 December 5, 1933 Full text
22nd Limits the president to two terms, or a maximum of 10 years (i.e., if a Vice President serves not more than one half of a President's term, he can be elected to a further two terms). March 24, 1947 February 27, 1951 Full text
23rd Provides for representation of Washington, D.C. in the Electoral College. June 16, 1960 March 29, 1961 Full text
24th Prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of poll taxes. September 14, 1962 January 23, 1964 Full text
25th Codifies the Tyler Precedent; defines the process of presidential succession. July 6, 1965 February 10, 1967 Full text
26th Establishes 18 as the national voting age. March 23, 1971 July 1, 1971 Full text
27th Prevents laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until the beginning of the next session of Congress.


Ammendments 11-27 all represent a clear and distinct change that in now a part of the Constitution. I don't understand how you continue to ignore facts.

The original intent of who satisfies an eligible voter is not the same as what the Constitution says today. It is not just a change in society's preference, it has also been a change to the Constitution. This is a fact, not a point of contention, I don't see how you are able to continue the argument.

[open mind]

I didn't say all cultures have done the same thing, I said they all have their fair share of embarrassments. Eskimos sent out their elderly on ice floats to die. That's pretty fucking ridiculous. Anyway, I'm not here to hate on cultures but apparently you have brought me down to your level.

The point is that if you had been conditioned your whole life to believe that a particular race was inferior to yours, and no scientific evidence existed to prove the contrary, you would undoubtedly follow suit in racist traditions. Furthermore, your completely self-righteous attitude sprouts from a series of events that you yourself had absolutely no part in, which I find hilarious.

what the fuck are you talking about? ice floats to die? that's yet another myth designed to demonize my people so western civilization would feel better about "civilizing" the savage natives in forced boarding schools rife with abuse hundreds of miles away from their families (my mom included).....and brought you down to my level? eat a dick you ignorant, self satisfied, douche bag.

i'm normally a level headed debater but your justifications, generalizations, and assumptions are so completely fucked they aren't worth discussing.

[Republicanman]

I don't think he'd discussing legitimate Amendments to the Constitution. Presumably he's discussing judicial activism, such as Wickard v. Filburn or FCC v. Pacifica

[Sean Rizzo]

right, and if you look at NRA v Chicago, it looks like they going to get hung up on a federal/state seperation
It shouldn't. The Court ruled that the second amendment would be incorporated to the states in one of the new rulings, I forget which.

I think you mean the original meaning of the Constitution has not.

But I agree with you that, regardless of Society's views, that doesn't give the judiciary the authority to simply update language as they see fit. The Supreme Court is not a legislative body.
Yes, thanks.

Ammendments 11-27 all represent a clear and distinct change that in now a part of the Constitution. I don't understand how you continue to ignore facts.

The original intent of who satisfies an eligible voter is not the same as what the Constitution says today. It is not just a change in society's preference, it has also been a change to the Constitution. This is a fact, not a point of contention, I don't see how you are able to continue the argument.
Edit: I defer.

I don't think he'd discussing legitimate Amendments to the Constitution. Presumably he's discussing judicial activism, such as Wickard v. Filburn or FCC v. Pacifica

[Scrandon]

Edit: I defer.

"Allows the Federal Government to collect an income tax" is not a fucking clarification.
It establishes something completely new that did not exist at the time of signing.

I guess you actually decided to read the list after posting? Next time, consider the facts before you make up your mind.

[Sean Rizzo]

"Allows the Federal Government to collect an income tax" is not a ****** clarification.
It establishes something completely new that did not exist at the time of signing.

I guess you actually decided to read the list after posting? Next time, consider the facts before you make up your mind.
Incorrect.

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[Scrandon]

Incorrect.

That is not an income tax!

[heyguys123]

this is pretty much the most ridiculously broad question possible

[Sean Rizzo]

That is not an income tax!
No, but there could have been. Just because an income tax wasn't immediately implemented does not mean Congress did not have a right to impose one. It states taxes as a general term, to be applied as Congress sees fit.

[Scrandon]

what the fuck are you talking about? ice floats to die? that's yet another myth designed to demonize my people so western civilization would feel better about "civilizing" the savage natives in forced boarding schools rife with abuse hundreds of miles away from their families (my mom included).....and brought you down to my level? eat a dick you ignorant, self satisfied, douche bag.

i'm normally a level headed debater but your justifications, generalizations, and assumptions are so completely fucked they aren't worth discussing.

Nice homophobia!

[Scrandon]

No, but there could have been. Just because an income tax wasn't immediately implemented does not mean Congress did not have a right to impose one. It states taxes as a general term, to be applied as Congress sees fit.

So now I have to go through the list because you're not willing to?

PROHIBITION OF FUCKING ALCOHOL. Tell me how that was in the original intent of the Constitution.

[J.C.]

The fuck is going on in here?

[open mind]

Nice homophobia!

pathetic dipshit is making assumptions again.

[Scrandon]

pathetic dipshit is making assumptions again.

No, it's right there in plain words in your post.

[Republicanman]

I'm really not sure what the argument is now.

[DJWildefire]

pathetic dipshit is making assumptions again.
Considering you told him to eat a dick and this was used as an insult, it can be gathered that you are homophobic even if it is only subconsciously. Think if you said 'perform oral sex on a black woman' in the same context. Would that not make you seem racist?

[open mind]

No, it's right there in plain words in your post.

i'd tell you to read up on reading comprehension but that would require reading.

[Scrandon]

i'd tell you to read up on reading comprehension but that would require reading.
zing!

I'd tell you how it's homophobic, but someone else already did that for me.

[open mind]

Considering you told him to eat a dick and this was used as an insult, it can be gathered that you are homophobic even if it is only subconsciously. Think if you said 'perform oral sex on a black woman' in the same context. Would that not make you seem racist?

his profile says straight, telling him to go do something he clearly would not enjoy makes sense if i'm trying to insult him as much as he insulted me, my family, and my ancestors.
i didn't involve race or sexual orientation. if i said sit and spin would that be homophobic or would i be telling someone to go fuck themselves?

[open mind]

zing!

I'd tell you how it's homophobic, but someone else already did that for me.

assumptions don't equal proof.

[Republicanman]

Holy shit, I must have entered into the "So you think you can Homophobia" thread. I need to find that damn Constitution thread now...

[Scrandon]

his profile says straight, telling him to go do something he clearly would not enjoy makes sense if i'm trying to insult him as much as he insulted me, my family, and my ancestors.
i didn't involve race.

1. Grow the fuck up.
2. My ancestors would be those land-stealing pricks you have been hating on all your life.
3. Stop trying to rationalize a homophobic insult.

[DJWildefire]

his profile says straight, telling him to go do something he clearly would not enjoy makes sense if i'm trying to insult him as much as he insulted me, my family, and my ancestors.
i didn't involve race.
So if it said he didn't like Simple Plan on his profile the best insult would be to tell him to listen to Simple Plan?

[Scrandon]

Holy shit, I must have entered into the "So you think you can Homophobia" thread. I need to find that damn Constitution thread now...

That discussion has temporarily put on hold while Prince of Light tries to find some inane response to my prohibition scenario.

[Scrandon]

So if it said he didn't like Simple Plan on his profile the best insult would be to tell him to listen to Simple Plan?

Haha, nice. At the end of the day you can sleep well knowing that you have a better grasp on the world than a 28 year old hypocrite.

[Scrandon]

I also find it funny that my profile has been off of private for about 2 days and I have already got a personal attack using profile info on this site, nice.

[DJWildefire]

Haha, nice. At the end of the day you can sleep well knowing that you have a better grasp on the world than a 28 year old hypocrite.
Thanks haha.

[open mind]

1. Grow the fuck up.
2. My ancestors would be those land-stealing pricks you have been hating on all your life.
3. Stop trying to rationalize a homophobic insult.

1.i'm perfectly reasonable until faced with idiotic insensitivity of epic proportions.
2.i was making a logical argument before you jumped down my throat and told me what i do.
3.stop trying to project a deeper meaning into a sentence when there isn't one.

[open mind]

So if it said he didn't like Simple Plan on his profile the best insult would be to tell him to listen to Simple Plan?

yeah, that would be a terrific insult, probably better then mine now that i think about it.

[J.C.]

Considering you told him to eat a dick and this was used as an insult, it can be gathered that you are homophobic even if it is only subconsciously.

What does eating a dick have to do with sexual orientation? Do gay people eat dicks for pleasure nowadays?

Think if you said 'perform oral sex on a black woman' in the same context. Would that not make you seem racist?

No, merely mentioning someone's race, even in as odd a context as your example, doesn't constitute racism.

[Scrandon]

Oh, trust me dude, I know there is nothing deep about "eat a dick". It's straight homophobia and to give the impression that you read my profile before posting that is laughable.

[DJWildefire]

yeah, that would be a terrific insult.
Well if I give you the B.O.D. then what we're left with is that you are terrible at insulting people.

[Scrandon]

No, merely mentioning someone's race, even in as odd a context as your example, doesn't constitute racism.

It's not simply mentioned, it's put out there as an insult, nice try.

[Machu505]

"Eat a dick" is now a homophobic insult? If that makes him homophobic "subconsciously" then both of you are PC-fascists "subconsciously".

[Scrandon]

Well if I give you the B.O.D. then what we're left with is that you are terrible at insulting people.

I'm not so sure about that, I practically cried.

[J.C.]

It's not simply mentioned, it's put out there as an insult, nice try.

"Perform oral sex on a black woman" is insulting black people?

[Scrandon]

"Perform oral sex on a black woman" is insulting black people?

Oh, geez. I don't care about the example, okay.

You said simply mentioning race is not racism but if it was being used as an insult than it most certainly is.

[open mind]

i love how my response to a stupid bitches (o noes i'm cl3arly h8tin women now!!!) incredibly idiotic post shitting on eskimos and making false generalized statements about us (as in me and all other eskimos) has turned into a bullshit debate about my supposed homophobia.

[caveBEAR]

This whole thread can eat a dick...

[Republicanman]

Whoa dude, that collective homophobic thought has gone too far.

[Sean Rizzo]

That is not an income tax!
No, but there could have been. Just because an income tax wasn't immediately implemented does not mean Congress did not have a right to impose one. It states taxes as a general term, to be applied as Congress sees fit.

[Sean Rizzo]

So now I have to go through the list because you're not willing to?

PROHIBITION OF ****** ALCOHOL. Tell me how that was in the original intent of the Constitution.
That was repealed, legitimately.

[Scrandon]

i love how shitting on eskimos and making false generalized statements about us (as in me and all other eskimos) has turned into a bullshit debate about my supposed homophobia.

Okay, you go bring the hate speech about anyone you want and don't expect to be called out about it or god forbid get your feelings hurt.

And you have done nothing to prove it false.

[Scrandon]

That was repealed, legitimately.

That's not a response, the point is that something had changed.

[Machu505]

No, but there could have been. Just because an income tax wasn't immediately implemented does not mean Congress did not have a right to impose one. It states taxes as a general term, to be applied as Congress sees fit.

No. Before 1913, Congress did not have the authority to levy a direct tax without apportionment. Afterwards they did.

[Republicanman]

No, but there could have been. Just because an income tax wasn't immediately implemented does not mean Congress did not have a right to impose one. It states taxes as a general term, to be applied as Congress sees fit.

No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

A federal income tax is a direct tax, which Congress could not technically levy until 1913.

[Machu505]

Article I, Section 9 if you doubt this.

[Scrandon]

Thank you, but he still won't admit the fact that he is wrong...

[Republicanman]

Considering Machu and I pretty much said it at the exact same time, he should be convinced.

[open mind]

Okay, you go bring the hate speech about anyone you want and don't expect to be called out about it or god forbid get your feelings hurt.

And you have done nothing to prove it false.

you've done nothing to prove it......and you know what ? in this country we believe in innocent until proven guilty. and idiotic diversionary arguments designed to hide your prejudices towards eskimos are not proof you pitiable piece of shit.

[Machu505]

Considering Machu and I pretty much said it at the exact same time, he should be convinced.

Unless we're both really missing something here.

[Sean Rizzo]

That's not a response, the point is that something had changed.
But nothing has changed currently in regard to original intent. The reversal of it makes your point moot.

No. Before 1913, Congress did not have the authority to levy a direct tax without apportionment. Afterwards they did.

A federal income tax is a direct tax, which Congress could not technically levy until 1913.
Conceded.

I find it rather ironic, however, that the government first claimed the income tax would be temporary to increase popular support so that the amendment could be ratified faster. How quickly things change.

[Scrandon]

you've done nothing to prove it......and you know what ? in this country we believe in innocent until proven guilty. and idiotic diversionary arguments designed to hide your prejudices towards eskimos are not proof.

Cool that you can simultaneously embrace a tenet of the nation the those 'land-stealing pricks' set up, yet still foster such a deep seeded hatred for them.

I have no prejudices against anyone, but if it fits your world view, by all means, have at it. I stated one thing because you explicitly asked for it. I'm now done. If you, as a 28 year-old man, feel it necessary to have the last word, go for it.

[Machu505]

I don't understand what's being argued here at all. Of course the original intent hasn't changed. Hence "original". The words were written down with intentions relating to the late 18th century. I don't get why that's contestable.

Unless Prince of Light is arguing that the Constitution should be interpreted in the modern day by its original intent, which I would disagree with.

[x togepi x]

"Eat a dick" is now a homophobic insult? If that makes him homophobic "subconsciously" then both of you are PC-fascists "subconsciously".

Seriously. This.

Just because something is insulting, doesn't mean it's homophobic.

[Republicanman]

Once again, we need to separate "intent" from "Meaning". Most Originalists (myself included) believe the original meaning of the text is what is important, not necessarily what a particular framer intended.

[J.C.]

Oh, geez. I don't care about the example, okay.

You said simply mentioning race is not racism but if it was being used as an insult than it most certainly is.

You should care about the example since it was the one I was responding to when you quoted me. For something to be construed as racism, it would have to at the least imply some kind of racial superiority/inferiority or harken on a stereotype. The example I responded to didn't come close to doing either, in the same way telling someone to 'eat a dick' does not implicate someone's sexual orientation.

[x togepi x]

Once again, we need to separate "intent" from "Meaning". Most Originalists (myself included) believe the original meaning of the text is what is important, not necessarily what a particular framer intended.

so you're a big fan of the 3/5ths compromise?

[Republicanman]

No, but I'm a fan of the 13th Amendment.

[Sean Rizzo]

Unless Prince of Light is arguing that the Constitution should be interpreted in the modern day by its original intent, which I would disagree with.
Pretty much that, lol.

[Scrandon]

Conceded.

I find it rather ironic, however, that the government first claimed the income tax would be temporary to increase popular support so that the amendment could be ratified faster. How quickly things change.

Aww, I don't get to be part of that conceded quote? But I was here for like 2 full pages pressing the issue.

The income tax was fully intended to be temporary and was in it's early history. The tax was set up to finance the Civil War and WWI and was promptly ended after each war. It was made permanent after WWII because it was finally realized that it was a much better way of taxing, as opposed to tariffs, which inhibit international trade. It's certainly not a bad thing that our country does not operate economically as it did two hundred years ago.

[open mind]

Cool that you can simultaneously embrace a tenet of the nation the those 'land-stealing pricks' set up, yet still foster such a deep seeded hatred for them.

I have no prejudices against anyone, but if it fits your world view, by all means, have at it. I stated one thing because you explicitly asked for it. I'm now done. If you, as a 28 year-old man, feel it necessary to have the last word, go for it.

it's cool that our founding fathers said all men are created equal and then proceeded to massacre and/or enslave those of a different color by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

you stated that eskimos killed their elderly by sending them on ice flows, which is a myth, and those who claim it to be fact can provide zero proof. i'll say it again. eat a (big/small perfectly adorable/disgusting and feminine/butch) dick you ignorant, self satisfied, douche bag.

[Republicanman]

Aww, I don't get to be part of that conceded quote? But I was here for like 2 full pages pressing the issue.

The income tax was fully intended to be temporary and was in it's early history. The tax was set up to finance the Civil War and WWI and was promptly ended after each war. It was made permanent after WWII because it was finally realized that it was a much better way of taxing, as opposed to tariffs, which inhibit international trade. It's certainly not a bad thing that our country does not operate economically as it did two hundred years ago.

There was most certainly a federal income tax following World War I.

Also, considering the economic mess that our country has been in since the business cycle was introduced, I would argue implementing a bit of the 18th century into our economics wouldn't be the end of the world.

[Sean Rizzo]

Aww, I don't get to be part of that conceded quote? But I was here for like 2 full pages pressing the issue.

The income tax was fully intended to be temporary and was in it's early history. The tax was set up to finance the Civil War and WWI and was promptly ended after each war. It was made permanent after WWII because it was finally realized that it was a much better way of taxing, as opposed to tariffs, which inhibit international trade. It's certainly not a bad thing that our country does not operate economically as it did two hundred years ago.
Highly debatable, and this tariffs part is key. This does not mean an income tax is the best way to tax. I support a flat tax, not a progressive income tax. Puts the government on a budget without loopholes and excessive bureaucracy to maintain.

[x togepi x]

No, but I'm a fan of the 13th Amendment.

but the 13th amendment can't be seen through the original intent of the founders so you fall into a logical contradiction.

That's the problem with your position. Even the founders with their racist, misogynist, aristocratic views realized that society was going to evolve beyond the 1780s, so they made it possible to amend the constitution. Once you concede that amending the constitution is legitimate, which you have to because that was their original intent if you're an originalist, then you concede that the original intent of the founders was flawed and takes a back seat to the prevailing social conditions of our society today. Essentially the so-called originalist interpretation of the constitution isn't even what the founders intended.

[J.C.]

needs moar bartering

[Sean Rizzo]

but the 13th amendment can't be seen through the original intent of the founders so you fall into a logical contradiction.

That's the problem with your position. Even the founders with their racist, misogynist, aristocratic views realized that society was going to evolve beyond the 1780s, so they made it possible to amend the constitution. Once you concede that amending the constitution is legitimate, which you have to because that was their original intent if you're an originalist, then you concede that the original intent of the founders was flawed and takes a back seat to the prevailing social conditions of our society today. Essentially the so-called originalist interpretation of the constitution isn't even what the founders intended.
Wrong. The original intent of the founders provided the amendment process for this very purpose, so it's legitimate.

[x togepi x]

Wrong. The original intent of the founders provided the amendment process for this very purpose, so it's legitimate.

Read more than the first line of my post if you're going to quote me next time.

[Sean Rizzo]

Read more than the first line of my post if you're going to quote me next time.
No one said some of the opinions the founders presented in the Constitution had was flawed. Again, this is why we have the amendment process. My problem with you and the rest of your cohorts in here is that you think just about the entire document is flawed when that's not the case.

[open mind]

You should care about the example since it was the one I was responding to when you quoted me. For something to be construed as racism, it would have to at the least imply some kind of racial superiority/inferiority or harken on a stereotype. The example I responded to didn't come close to doing either, in the same way telling someone to 'eat a dick' does not implicate someone's sexual orientation.

he's a fucking moron incapable of complex thought, leave him be.

[x togepi x]

No one said some of the opinions the founders presented in the Constitution had was flawed. Again, this is why we have the amendment process. My problem with you and the rest of your cohorts in here is that you think just about the entire document is flawed when that's not the case.

the entire document is flawed since there are oppressed people, a government that ignores the populace and a broken political system.

[Scrandon]

You should care about the example since it was the one I was responding to when you quoted me. For something to be construed as racism, it would have to at the least imply some kind of racial superiority/inferiority or harken on a stereotype. The example I responded to didn't come close to doing either, in the same way telling someone to 'eat a dick' does not implicate someone's sexual orientation.

I was not going to respond to this because it would get him into it, but too late for that. If someone says that, you would have to wonder why they are being specific about it being a black woman.

[Republicanman]

but the 13th amendment can't be seen through the original intent of the founders so you fall into a logical contradiction.

That's the problem with your position. Even the founders with their racist, misogynist, aristocratic views realized that society was going to evolve beyond the 1780s, so they made it possible to amend the constitution. Once you concede that amending the constitution is legitimate, which you have to because that was their original intent if you're an originalist, then you concede that the original intent of the founders was flawed and takes a back seat to the prevailing social conditions of our society today. Essentially the so-called originalist interpretation of the constitution isn't even what the founders intended.

You have misread what I said. You confused "intent" with "meaning". Those are two very different items. Furthermore, why would I want to see the intent of the framers for the 13th Amendment anyways? If anything, I would be looking towards the writers' intent of the Civil War Amendments.

No one is arguing that the Founding fathers lived flawed existence. Furthermore, it isn't possible to sensibly look at their "intents", because those intents were varied depending on whom you looked back at.

The idea of original meaning Originalism is that you use the text as defined in 18th century terms. For instance, Commerce in the 18th century had a different denotation than it did in the 1930's, when the Supreme Court widely expanded the Commerce Clause. An Original meaning Originalist would argue that, short of amending the Constitution, the Supreme Court cannot merely use an updated definition of the word, because that doesn't square with the document used to restrain government. After all, the Constitution was considered the first innovative document that allowed us to be, " "a government of laws and not of men." What a follower of a living Constitution would argue is that a Justice should have the ability to mutate the original content of the Constitution based on social conditions. This is certainly a way to try to deal with the Constitution, but my contention is that without respecting the original law, you undermine said law and essentially make it void.

[Scrandon]

Also, I'm now convinced a thread this vague cannot exist, there are way too many possible tangents, and I'm sure we are all restraining ourselves from discussing some of them.

[Republicanman]

the entire document is flawed since there are oppressed people, a government that ignores the populace and a broken political system.

See the 14th Amendment, and also the 19th Amendment.

[J.C.]

No one said some of the opinions the founders presented in the Constitution had was flawed. Again, this is why we have the amendment process. My problem with you and the rest of your cohorts in here is that you think just about the entire document is flawed when that's not the case.

Including the amendment process does not grant them a pass for having future generations have to endure and ultimately change a lot of basic things they originally omitted. If they 'intended' the stuff you're giving them credit for posthumously, what are you attributing their rationale to be for not establishing those things in the first place?

[x togepi x]

You have misread what I said. You confused "intent" with "meaning". Those are two very different items. Furthermore, why would I want to see the intent of the framers for the 13th Amendment anyways? If anything, I would be looking towards the writers' intent of the Civil War Amendments.

No, I'm saying that the founders intended meaning to be fluid with the greater changes in society, which means that an originalist interpretation is, at best, absurd. For example, we could look at the Civil War Amendments through their "intent", which was largely to get rid of slavery while letting the south continue to oppress the black populace. Or, we could look at it as the beginning towards the long struggle for racial equality.

No one is arguing that the Founding fathers lived flawed existence. Furthermore, it isn't possible to sensibly look at their "intents", because those intents were varied depending on whom you looked back at.

exactly, this is why an originalist intent is absurd.

The idea of original meaning Originalism is that you use the text as defined in 18th century terms. For instance, Commerce in the 18th century had a different denotation than it did in the 1930's, when the Supreme Court widely expanded the Commerce Clause. An Original meaning Originalist would argue that, short of amending the Constitution, the Supreme Court cannot merely use an updated definition of the word, because that doesn't square with the document used to restrain government. After all, the Constitution was considered the first innovative document that allowed us to be, " "a government of laws and not of men." What a follower of a living Constitution would argue is that a Justice should have the ability to mutate the original content of the Constitution based on social conditions.

This is certainly a way to try to deal with the Constitution, but my contention is that without respecting the original law, you undermine said law and essentially make it void.

That's simply untrue. Just because you're admitting that "the law" can be fluid and ever changing doesn't mean that you're automatically undermining it and making it void. If anything, trying to look through a time machine and figure out what the founders "intended" those words to mean undermines the supposed "rule of law" because it binds us to interpretations that are largely irrelevant to our culture today and have been filtered through ideological lenses.

Just look at the debate over separation of church and state for proof of this.

[x togepi x]

See the 14th Amendment, and also the 19th Amendment.

See: the fact that those amendments do largely do jack to attack white male privilege in this country, nor do they do anything to help the oppressed around the world, especially when American companies are largely on the side of oppressors (the idea of global trade being completely outside the realm of originalism)

[Republicanman]

No, I'm saying that the founders intended meaning to be fluid with the greater changes in society, which means that an originalist interpretation is, at best, absurd. For example, we could look at the Civil War Amendments through their "intent", which was largely to get rid of slavery while letting the south continue to oppress the black populace. Or, we could look at it as the beginning towards the long struggle for racial equality.





exactly, this is why an originalist intent is absurd.[/QUOTE]

I might not be making myself clear, but I'm not a follower of Original Intent. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about:

The 8th Amendment discusses cruel and unusual punishment. Now, in 1789, there was no such thing as a stereo system. The founders would never have had the intent of barring torture from blaring loud music to detainees in prison. However, we can easily reference Blackstone's Legal terms from that era to get an understanding of what both cruel and unusual pertains. Using this knowledge, we can infer that, though the Framer's intent was not to bar music blaring into a prisoner's ears, the definition set fourth in the 8th Amendment satisfactorily covers that such a thing is both cruel and unusual in today's world. Therefore, we are using the meaning from 1789 and applying it today, without changing the original meaning.



[QUOTE=x togepi x;71262182That's simply untrue. Just because you're admitting that "the law" can be fluid and ever changing doesn't mean that you're automatically undermining it and making it void. If anything, trying to look through a time machine and figure out what the founders "intended" those words to mean undermines the supposed "rule of law" because it binds us to interpretations that are largely irrelevant to our culture today and have been filtered through ideological lenses.

Just look at the debate over separation of church and state for proof of this.[/QUOTE]

Firstly, I'd like to point out that when using Original meaning Originalism, one does not seek out what the Framers intended for a word to mean. What we do seek out is what the general usage of such a word would have been, and thusly extrapolate that meaning from the text.

We can easily use the "Commerce Clause" as an example. We know historically that commerce in 1787 was synonymous with trade. So when inserting the word trade into the text, we can see that the federal government's role was to make sure that states would not create tariffs with other states, or with foreign nations.

Fast forward to the 1942, when the Supreme Court decided that a man growing his own wheat for personal consumption allegedly affected interstate commerce to the point where that person could only grow wheat if he intended to sell it. In recent times, commerce has been defined as " the activity embracing all forms of the purchase and sale of goods and services". Certainly this is a much broader definition than in the 18th century.

So if I'm right in understanding you, you claim that we should use the modern definition, because it is socially acceptable. Doing this, however, broadly extends federal power, certainly much more than what the Constitution itself permits. I liken it to reading a C.S. Lewis novel, where one of the characters defines another as "Queer." Obviously, the word has a different meaning now than it did then. So would your contention be to update this sentence, defining queer as homosexual?

[Republicanman]

See: the fact that those amendments do largely do jack to attack white male privilege in this country, nor do they do anything to help the oppressed around the world, especially when American companies are largely on the side of oppressors (the idea of global trade being completely outside the realm of originalism)


Are you kidding me? The 19th Amendment was the culmination of nearly a century of women's rights activists working for equality, starting in Seneca Falls, NY in 1848. The 14th Amendment was the justification used to incorporate equal rights onto the states, thereby making school segregation illegal.

Also, if you could just show me where in the Constitution it allows the federal government to dictate foreign aid overseas, I would be much appreciated.

[x togepi x]

I might not be making myself clear, but I'm not a follower of Original Intent. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about:

The 8th Amendment discusses cruel and unusual punishment. Now, in 1789, there was no such thing as a stereo system. The founders would never have had the intent of barring torture from blaring loud music to detainees in prison. However, we can easily reference Blackstone's Legal terms from that era to get an understanding of what both cruel and unusual pertains. Using this knowledge, we can infer that, though the Framer's intent was not to bar music blaring into a prisoner's ears, the definition set fourth in the 8th Amendment satisfactorily covers that such a thing is both cruel and unusual in today's world. Therefore, we are using the meaning from 1789 and applying it today, without changing the original meaning.

Your example proves my point about the problems with originalism. The definition of torture has become dependent on ideology, much like the 8th amendment. You can have supposed originalists saying that the founders would have been okay with blaring loud music and those who are going to disagree. At this point, originalism is self contradictory and essentially meaningless.


Firstly, I'd like to point out that when using Original meaning Originalism, one does not seek out what the Framers intended for a word to mean. What we do seek out is what the general usage of such a word would have been, and thusly extrapolate that meaning from the text.

Why? Those meanings are largely irrelevant to today's world.


So if I'm right in understanding you, you claim that we should use the modern definition, because it is socially acceptable. Doing this, however, broadly extends federal power, certainly much more than what the Constitution itself permits. I liken it to reading a C.S. Lewis novel, where one of the characters defines another as "Queer." Obviously, the word has a different meaning now than it did then. So would your contention be to update this sentence, defining queer as homosexual?

That's not what i'm saying at all. I'm saying there's a multitude of interpretations that are valuable and that there are cases where it's better to throw the originalist one out the window. This doesn't "broadly extend federal power," it merely points out that there are many ways we can interpret certain parts of the constitution, as as a living document by original intent, we ought to recognize the fluidity of meaning.

this is why we have a court system that is given the power to interpret the constitution.

[x togepi x]

Are you kidding me? The 19th Amendment was the culmination of nearly a century of women's rights activists working for equality, starting in Seneca Falls, NY in 1848.

and yet women are still second class citizens who are often trampled by the social, economic and political systems in the United States. the mere ability to vote hasn't really done that much to help the plight of women.

The 14th Amendment was the justification used to incorporate equal rights onto the states, thereby making school segregation illegal.

and yet racial minorities are still second class citizens who are often tramped by the social, economic, and political systems of the united states.


but this is a great example of how originalist intention is actually bad for this country. many fighting the federal government's actions to destroy segregation used an originalist interpretation of State's Rights.

Also, if you could just show me where in the Constitution it allows the federal government to dictate foreign aid overseas, I would be much appreciated.

I'm not talking about foreign aid. I'm talking about the actions of American corporations.

[open mind]

Also, I'm now convinced a thread this vague cannot exist, there are way too many possible tangents, and I'm sure we are all restraining ourselves from discussing some of them.

it exists, if it didn't you wouldn't be posting in it you degenerate simpleton.

[Scrandon]

You that mad? I guess I meant it cannot really be productive.

[Republicanman]

Your example proves my point about the problems with originalism. The definition of torture has become dependent on ideology, much like the 8th amendment. You can have supposed originalists saying that the founders would have been okay with blaring loud music and those who are going to disagree. At this point, originalism is self contradictory and essentially meaningless.




Why? Those meanings are largely irrelevant to today's world.




That's not what i'm saying at all. I'm saying there's a multitude of interpretations that are valuable and that there are cases where it's better to throw the originalist one out the window. This doesn't "broadly extend federal power," it merely points out that there are many ways we can interpret certain parts of the constitution, as as a living document by original intent, we ought to recognize the fluidity of meaning.

this is why we have a court system that is given the power to interpret the constitution.

This is becoming redundant, because you continue to use intent instead of meaning.

I think you confuse interpreting the Constitution and changing the Constitution. The meaning of the text in 1787 is just as relevant today as it was then; What the courts job entails is to find the enumerated power given to Congress, or to see whether or not a law has overstepped it's boundaries based on the meaning of the text.

As far as your rant about women and minorities being second class citizens, I urge you to compare our representative democracy with any other system on the planet. As Winston Churchill famously put it, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

[open mind]

You that mad? I guess I meant it cannot really be productive.

yeah, i was pretty pissed about your blanket statement concerning eskimos and the rationalizations for defending the historical attitudes of racial superiority.

you're generally a decent contributor to this forum though, so i apologize for the insults.

[sjb2k1]

what the hell happened in this thread?

[Zeran]

I believe that people who think of government should be based on soley the constitution are equal to Christians who belive that Christians have to live by the Bible. I believe that both the Constituation and the Bible did not account for modern times and situations.

People confuse getting away from the constitution with changes to life in the future. It is a living breathing document.

To look at the constitution from the perspective of the day it was written is just ignorant. Unfortunately a lot of people are ignorant.

the constitution is an adaptable document by design because the people who ratified it knew they didn't have all the answers.
bingo.
original intent does not override modern reality.
the founders of this country knew this, which is why they created such a malleable document.

i'm pretty buzzed at the moment and may be talking out of my ass a result......but i'll ride this argument as far as i can.
again, why do people come on ap when they're drunk? is there nothing better to do? lol

[Republicanman]

Sorry, but that is NOT the way the Framers saw their work, and any brief intro to texts such as Gordon Wood's Empire of Liberty or even Randy Barnett's Restoring the Lost Constitution would show that the overwhelming majority felt the ONLY way to "update" the Constitution was through the Amendment process.

The differences between the Constitution and the Bible are stark. Orthodox Jewish scholars before Christ would regularly update parts of the Old Testament that they felt was necessary. Even after Jesus came and went, the Bible was being tweaked with. Hell, the King James version rephrases many passages that make it, at best, ambiguous to know what the original writers meant.

The Constitution, on the other hand, still remains the same text it did in 1787, save the Amendments. One cannot simply interpret those words differently than they would have at the time, otherwise the Amendment process becomes absolutely meaningless.

[x togepi x]

This is becoming redundant, because you continue to use intent instead of meaning.

This is becoming redundant because you're not reading what I'm saying. "original meaning" is irrelevant to today's world, easily twisted by ideology, and vague *at best*.


I think you confuse interpreting the Constitution and changing the Constitution. The meaning of the text in 1787 is just as relevant today as it was then; What the courts job entails is to find the enumerated power given to Congress, or to see whether or not a law has overstepped it's boundaries based on the meaning of the text.

Once again, I think you're not paying attention. The meaning of past political documents evolves and changes throughout time. My saying this is not the same as me saying "we can change the constitution." For example, let's set aside the Constitution and look towards the Declaration of Independence. in 1776, that document was used as a list of grievances against the British. Implicit in its meaning was the idea, from social contract theory, that if a government is not be just and protecting rights, one has the moral right to overthrow it. In 2010, that meaning is no longer socially relevant, because we don't use 18th century social contract theory anymore because social phenomenon like globalization render it a moot point. Nobody is going to tell you that you have the right to overthrow the government, even though the original meaning of the text says you do.

We can see the same sort of thing with the Constitution in regards to Federalism. The civil rights movement radically redefined the concept of state's rights in the United States. Both sides pointed to the "original meaning" of the constitution to justify their position. Fortunately, our society evolved in a way in which we thought of civil rights matters as federal matters. If you were right, we'd probably still have segregation because that issue would largely be a State's Right issue.

As far as your rant about women and minorities being second class citizens, I urge you to compare our representative democracy with any other system on the planet. As Winston Churchill famously put it, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

A cute quote doesn't change my point. The constitution is an imperfect document. Because it is so hard to amend, its conservative nature makes it a strong force for the continuation of straight white male privilege. This means it's not perfect and shouldn't be held above all else when we're talking about social progress.

[Zeran]

needs moar bartering

hahahahahahha

[Republicanman]

This is becoming redundant because you're not reading what I'm saying. "original meaning" is irrelevant to today's world, easily twisted by ideology, and vague *at best*.

There's no ideological twisting if you simply use the language used in the text. Progressives simply dislike this truth because it means they either have to dismantle the document because of it's ties to natural rights, or go around it in other ways.


Once again, I think you're not paying attention. The meaning of past political documents evolves and changes throughout time. My saying this is not the same as me saying "we can change the constitution." For example, let's set aside the Constitution and look towards the Declaration of Independence. in 1776, that document was used as a list of grievances against the British. Implicit in its meaning was the idea, from social contract theory, that if a government is not be just and protecting rights, one has the moral right to overthrow it. In 2010, that meaning is no longer socially relevant, because we don't use 18th century social contract theory anymore because social phenomenon like globalization render it a moot point. Nobody is going to tell you that you have the right to overthrow the government, even though the original meaning of the text says you do.

Except the Declaration, while based on the social contract theory, was not in itself binding on any particular person. As you said, it is merely a list of grievances. However, if in the Constitution those words existed, we as citizens would have every right.

We can see the same sort of thing with the Constitution in regards to Federalism. The civil rights movement radically redefined the concept of state's rights in the United States. Both sides pointed to the "original meaning" of the constitution to justify their position. Fortunately, our society evolved in a way in which we thought of civil rights matters as federal matters. If you were right, we'd probably still have segregation because that issue would largely be a State's Right issue.

Once again, the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated equal rights into the states. So we have no governmental segregation. This is not the same as private discrimination, which the Civil Rights Act of 1965 covered.

[QUOTE=x togepi x;71291222A cute quote doesn't change my point. The constitution is an imperfect document. Because it is so hard to amend, its conservative nature makes it a strong force for the continuation of straight white male privilege. This means it's not perfect and shouldn't be held above all else when we're talking about social progress.[/QUOTE]

Who argued it was a perfect document. It is so hard to amend specifically because the Framers felt it wise to have discussions at great length before amending it. Would you like it if, in a country as conservative as ours, a Constitutional Amendment was passed banning gay marriage? I wouldn't. Or how about an Amendment that decimates the Establishment clause? The whole point of a drawn out Amendment process is that we should take a hard look before making decisions for an entire country.

Your ranting about straight white male privilege is completely destroyed by amendments existing in the Constitution. We have a black President and Attorney General. We have a female Secretary of State, and soon to be three female Supreme Court Justices.

[x togepi x]

There's no ideological twisting if you simply use the language used in the text. Progressives simply dislike this truth because it means they either have to dismantle the document because of it's ties to natural rights, or go around it in other ways.

Thank you for just proving my point.

A progressive is going to say the exact same thing you just said about "this truth" when a conservative or libertarian talks about whether or not an issue is a federal or state right. You're so stuck within your ideological make up that you aren't willing to see the bigger picture.

Meaning is fairly indeterminate in a text. It's really not as easy as looking up the definition of words like you think it is.


Except the Declaration, while based on the social contract theory, was not in itself binding on any particular person. As you said, it is merely a list of grievances. However, if in the Constitution those words existed, we as citizens would have every right.

Except, you're not really responding to my point here. Clearly there's a difference between the declaration and the constitution. What i was telling you is that the greater meaning of both texts can, and has, evolved over time even if we aren't going through and changing the specific words. It was an example, but clearly you missed the point to play a semantical game.

Here's a better example: the Treaty of Tripoli. It's considered legally binding, so you can't ignore this point anymore. When the treaty was signed by the founders, it explicitly states that we are not a Christian nation. It was ratified unanimously. Yet, in 2010, most political discourse considers the US a Christian nation. Why? Because the meaning of the treaty evolved, now people claim that text is meant to claim the US is not a theocracy and use the religious beliefs of the founders to justify this claim.

Once again, the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated equal rights into the states. So we have no governmental segregation. This is not the same as private discrimination, which the Civil Rights Act of 1965 covered.

I'm referring to enforcement of the law. For someone who's all about the original meaning, you really seem to not really know anything about history. Even after the 14th amendment, we had public discrimination (this is what the Civil Rights act of 1965 actually covered). Even if African Americans had the right to vote, they were often turned away. Even when the Supreme Court may have overturned segregation in a certain area, it still happened. Why? because those laws were not enforced.

At the time, civil rights matters were considered normal law enforcement procedures. In the 30s, FDR started getting the FBI involved in defining civil rights as a federal matter. A lot of people didn't like this, claiming it trampled States Rights. Others disagreed. The point being that both sides used "original meaning" to justify their position. While in Alabama 1954, the original meaning of the constitution said that civil rights matters were local matters, in Alabama 2010, it is a federal one. This is proof that the meaning evolved with the greater social and political forces of history.



Who argued it was a perfect document. It is so hard to amend specifically because the Framers felt it wise to have discussions at great length before amending it. Would you like it if, in a country as conservative as ours, a Constitutional Amendment was passed banning gay marriage? I wouldn't. Or how about an Amendment that decimates the Establishment clause? The whole point of a drawn out Amendment process is that we should take a hard look before making decisions for an entire country.

that Prince Of Light character was.

Dude, I get "the point" of why it takes so long to amend it. I'm telling you that the ability to "have discussions at great length" before doing something is a luxury that only the most powerful really have in plenty of issues.


Your ranting about straight white male privilege is completely destroyed by amendments existing in the Constitution. We have a black President and Attorney General. We have a female Secretary of State, and soon to be three female Supreme Court Justices.

Okay whitey, I get that you don't understand how privilege works but I would argue that those people got where they are in spite of their minority status and not because privilege magically disappeared. you're an idiot.

[Republicanman]

Thank you for just proving my point.

A progressive is going to say the exact same thing you just said about "this truth" when a conservative or libertarian talks about whether or not an issue is a federal or state right. You're so stuck within your ideological make up that you aren't willing to see the bigger picture

My Constitutional beliefs aren't based on my ideology. They are, believe it or not, separate entities and come from different backgrounds.

[QUOTE=x togepi x;71294122]Except, you're not really responding to my point here. Clearly there's a difference between the declaration and the constitution. What i was telling you is that the greater meaning of both texts can, and has, evolved over time even if we aren't going through and changing the specific words. It was an example, but clearly you missed the point to play a semantical game.

Why do you insist they have evolved over time? Just because Americans today see them in a different light doesn't mean they have evolved, but rather that most of us are too ignorant to understand what the Declaration and the Constitution actually mean.

Here's a better example: the Treaty of Tripoli. It's considered legally binding, so you can't ignore this point anymore. When the treaty was signed by the founders, it explicitly states that we are not a Christian nation. It was ratified unanimously. Yet, in 2010, most political discourse considers the US a Christian nation. Why? Because the meaning of the treaty evolved, now people claim that text is meant to claim the US is not a theocracy and use the religious beliefs of the founders to justify this claim.

That would just be ignorance on their part. It seems to me that your claim is based on popular opinion at a specified time; If the masses believe it to be so, it must be. However, that's a very populist, and dangerous, way to think about things.

Simply because a group of people believe us to be a Christian nation does not make it so. Furthermore, any attempts of someone to misuse a document should be squelched, which is what Original meaning Originalism does.



I'm referring to enforcement of the law. For someone who's all about the original meaning, you really seem to not really know anything about history. Even after the 14th amendment, we had public discrimination (this is what the Civil Rights act of 1965 actually covered). Even if African Americans had the right to vote, they were often turned away. Even when the Supreme Court may have overturned segregation in a certain area, it still happened. Why? because those laws were not enforced.

At the time, civil rights matters were considered normal law enforcement procedures. In the 30s, FDR started getting the FBI involved in defining civil rights as a federal matter. A lot of people didn't like this, claiming it trampled States Rights. Others disagreed. The point being that both sides used "original meaning" to justify their position. While in Alabama 1954, the original meaning of the constitution said that civil rights matters were local matters, in Alabama 2010, it is a federal one. This is proof that the meaning evolved with the greater social and political forces of history.

And the courts eventually clarified the issue, and said issue was enforced. Just because a matter isn't resolved instantaneously doesn't mean the attempts to solve it were a complete failure.

Furthermore, your analogy with Alabama is absolutely wrong. Simply because people in Alabama in 1954 thought the Constitution said something does not make it so. You seem to base total interpretation on what the public thinks, but that's not what Constitutional jurisprudence is about. The Supreme Court didn't just make up the idea that civil rights should be a federal matter, they merely clarified what the 14th Amendment originally said. It is not the fault of the Civil War Amendment framers that the federal government didn't pursue greater clarity on civil rights. You insult me about my lack of history knowledge, but surely you know that the failure of Reconstruction in the 1870's, as well as the coming Gilded Age, essentially overshadowed what happened immediately after the Civil War.



Okay whitey, I get that you don't understand how privilege works but I would argue that those people got where they are in spite of their minority status and not because privilege magically disappeared. you're an idiot.

1. I'm Jewish, want to discuss actual discrimination?

2. I'm under the poverty line, and too poor to even go back to college. Want to discuss privilege?

3. Why can't you have a conversation without calling someone an idiot? I certainly don't think you are an idiot, even if I think you're incorrect.

[J.C.]

A poor conservative jew? I've heard it all.

[Love As Arson]

There's no ideological twisting if you simply use the language used in the text.
The text itself is ideological insofar as it represents the class that wrote it. We've only breached this reality by reinterpreting the document according to our values.
dismantle the document .
Good option. There are some things in there I'd keep, but we can probably come up with something better.

[x togepi x]

[QUOTE=x togepi x;71294122]
My Constitutional beliefs aren't based on my ideology. They are, believe it or not, separate entities and come from different backgrounds.

Considering all of your posts on this form are your basic libertarian tripe, I'm calling you out on this claim. I mean, for christ's sake your screen name is Republicanman.

Why do you insist they have evolved over time? Just because Americans today see them in a different light doesn't mean they have evolved, but rather that most of us are too ignorant to understand what the Declaration and the Constitution actually mean.

They've evolved over time. It's fairly simple. You can call us "ignorant" but even scholars are talking like I do. The real underlying point is that if it was so easy to determine original meaning as you claim it is, we wouldn't see this evolution nor would we have so much ignorance. It's not like it's a bunch of college kids talking about this, the same sort of conversation happens in politics and in law offices.


That would just be ignorance on their part. It seems to me that your claim is based on popular opinion at a specified time; If the masses believe it to be so, it must be. However, that's a very populist, and dangerous, way to think about things.

That's a nice straw man but it's not my claim at all. I'm not just saying because people all believe something, that's what it is. I'm saying that the social structures themselves have changed in a way so that the populace's meaning and the original meaning are different.

Simply because a group of people believe us to be a Christian nation does not make it so. Furthermore, any attempts of someone to misuse a document should be squelched, which is what Original meaning Originalism does.

Once again, you forget that Originalism is defined within an ideological outlook. A secularist and a Christian evangelicalist could both be Originalists because that meaning isn't clear and distinct like you claim.

And the courts eventually clarified the issue, and said issue was enforced. Just because a matter isn't resolved instantaneously doesn't mean the attempts to solve it were a complete failure.

the courts clarified the issue by going with precedents set by FDR's administration, which is hardly originalist.

Furthermore, your analogy with Alabama is absolutely wrong. Simply because people in Alabama in 1954 thought the Constitution said something does not make it so. You seem to base total interpretation on what the public thinks, but that's not what Constitutional jurisprudence is about. The Supreme Court didn't just make up the idea that civil rights should be a federal matter, they merely clarified what the 14th Amendment originally said. It is not the fault of the Civil War Amendment framers that the federal government didn't pursue greater clarity on civil rights. You insult me about my lack of history knowledge, but surely you know that the failure of Reconstruction in the 1870's, as well as the coming Gilded Age, essentially overshadowed what happened immediately after the Civil War.

I'm insulting you because you can barely read, let alone understand historical evidence.

If you want, I could easily cite sources proving that the federal government didn't view civil rights issues as a federal issue. That's part of the reason why segregation went on so long.

1. I'm Jewish, want to discuss actual discrimination?

If you seriously think that women's oppression isn't "actual discrimination" then I doubt you've ever talked to a woman in your life.

2. I'm under the poverty line, and too poor to even go back to college. Want to discuss privilege?

Privilege isn't merely monetary.

3. Why can't you have a conversation without calling someone an idiot? I certainly don't think you are an idiot, even if I think you're incorrect.

because you can barely read and make stupid points. this makes you an idiot.

[GeeBee]

1. I'm Jewish, want to discuss actual discrimination?
:lol: Yeah, please! Expound on how you, as a Jew in the U.S. of A. have had it so rough! Tell us about the "actual discrimination" that you as a Jew have dealt with in our fair land!
A poor conservative jew? I've heard it all.
Seriously...

[iheartmusic043]

Sorry, but that is NOT the way the Framers saw their work, and any brief intro to texts such as Gordon Wood's Empire of Liberty or even Randy Barnett's Restoring the Lost Constitution would show that the overwhelming majority felt the ONLY way to "update" the Constitution was through the Amendment process.

The differences between the Constitution and the Bible are stark.Orthodox Jewish scholars before Christ would regularly update parts of the Old Testament that they felt was necessary. Even after Jesus came and went, the Bible was being tweaked with. Hell, the King James version rephrases many passages that make it, at best, ambiguous to know what the original writers meant.

The Constitution, on the other hand, still remains the same text it did in 1787, save the Amendments. One cannot simply interpret those words differently than they would have at the time, otherwise the Amendment process becomes absolutely meaningless.

There is a way to compromise the ideas of our founders and ideas brought about due to modern times/events, make it easier to make amendments. I'm not saying put every idea a politician throws around into the Constitution, but issues such as marriage rights and more support for soldiers after they come back from serving overseas need to be addressed on a much larger scale. I know this may seem not relevant but the Constitution was greatly impacted by the Bible, despite America not being a theocracy. Both a large majprity of the Bible and the Constitution were based on the opinions of the writers, not evidence, ergo, politicians should not try to push their religious ideologies on the average citizen. They need to think beyond themselves and think of what would benefit the greater good. Like why make such an issue about gay rights and pro-choice when there are more important things are going on. Let people decide what is right for themselves, isn't that democracy is?

[samsara]

Wow this thread is a shit fest.


Oh wait I shouldnt say that, because I might actually be insinuating something...

[caveBEAR]

They pay taxes.

[open mind]

Wow this thread is a shit fest.


Oh wait I shouldnt say that, because I might actually be insinuating something...

sorry.

[inevitable]

:lol: Yeah, please! Expound on how you, as a Jew in the U.S. of A. have had it so rough! Tell us about the "actual discrimination" that you as a Jew have dealt with in our fair land!

Are you kidding me? Jews have experienced more discrimination throughout their existence than any other race. For you to make light of that is completely ridiculous and hypocritical especially coming from a party that supposedly pities other races for their past grievances. You're pathetic.

[GeeBee]

Are you kidding me? Jews have experienced more discrimination throughout their existence than any other race. For you to make light of that is completely ridiculous and hypocritical especially coming from a party that supposedly pities other races for their past grievances. You're pathetic.

Read what I fucking wrote before you play the persecution card, moron. In the history of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Jews have enjoyed relative peace and prosperity, and have not been subject to the same hardships that women have or still do. A twenty-something Jew in the U.S.A. has no cause to claim he's persecuted. Period. A WOMAN on the other hand still only makes 70 cents on the dollar for what a man makes.

Practice reading comprehension.

[caveBEAR]

The lack of reading comprehension in this thread is mind-boggling...

[Zeran]

is there such a thing as a "jew card"? you know, like the race card, but for jews?

[samsara]

sorry.

Its not you, its them.

[repr1ze]

Are you kidding me? Jews have experienced more discrimination throughout their existence than any other race. For you to make light of that is completely ridiculous and hypocritical especially coming from a party that supposedly pities other races for their past grievances. You're pathetic.

Did you read anything he posted or did you just pick out the words Jew and Discrimination and go to town?

[inevitable]

Read what I fucking wrote before you play the persecution card, moron. In the history of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Jews have enjoyed relative peace and prosperity, and have not been subject to the same hardships that women have or still do. A twenty-something Jew in the U.S.A. has no cause to claim he's persecuted. Period. A WOMAN on the other hand still only makes 70 cents on the dollar for what a man makes.

Practice reading comprehension.

A lot of Jewish Americans are here because they were persecuted, moron. So why don't you do a little research and quit being such an obstinate, obtuse prick.

[GeeBee]

A lot of Jewish Americans are here because they were persecuted, moron. So why don't you do a little research and quit being such an obstinate, obtuse prick.

YES, AND THOSE WHO ARE HERE ENJOY A LARGELY PERSECUTION-FREE LIFE!

Fuck, does the fact that about 5 people have called you out on this not give you a clue? Get the fuck over it.

[inevitable]

YES, AND THOSE WHO ARE HERE ENJOY A LARGELY PERSECUTION-FREE LIFE!

Fuck, does the fact that about 5 people have called you out on this not give you a clue? Get the fuck over it.

Not at all. I just get annoyed that people like you can make a joke about a Jewish person and then get so serious over civil rights. It's pretty hypocritical.

[inevitable]

Did you read anything he posted or did you just pick out the words Jew and Discrimination and go to town?

I read what he said. Then went to town. Sound good?

[GeeBee]

Not at all. I just get annoyed that people like you can make a joke about a Jewish person and then get so serious over civil rights. It's pretty hypocritical.

I didn't make a joke about a Jewish person you simple fuck. A twenty-something Jew in the United States feeling picked on IS a joke.
Fuck off already.

[caveBEAR]

Forrest Gump here just isn't getting the point...

[caveBEAR]

I didn't make a joke about a Jewish person you simple fuck. A twenty-something Jew in the United States feeling picked on IS a joke.
Fuck off already.

So a twenty year old Jew in America walks into a bar...

...and sits right down, orders a drink, and has a lovely, persecution free night.

[GeeBee]

So a twenty year old Jew in America walks into a bar...

...and sits right down, orders a drink, and has a lovely, persecution free night.

And later leaves a lousy tip! ZING!!!

[Mitch]

Wait is someone really implying that they have a tough life, being a Jew in America and all?

:lol:

[x togepi x]

there are cases of jewish discrimination in the united states, especially with the rise of white power groups in recent years, however, acting like that's "real discrimination" but sexism isn't is about the most ignorant thing i've read on this forum. of course, leave it to a poster named Republicanman to pull that out.

[Zeran]

So a twenty year old Jew in America walks into a bar...

...and sits right down, orders a drink, and has a lovely, persecution free night.

And later leaves a lousy tip! ZING!!!

:-d

[repr1ze]

I didn't make a joke about a Jewish person you simple fuck. A twenty-something Jew in the United States feeling picked on IS a joke..

hahaha that was amazingly hilarious

[inevitable]

there are cases of jewish discrimination in the united states, especially with the rise of white power groups in recent years, however, acting like that's "real discrimination" but sexism isn't is about the most ignorant thing i've read on this forum. of course, leave it to a poster named Republicanman to pull that out.

but clearly these guys wouldn't want you to post that!

[caveBEAR]

but clearly these guys wouldn't want you to post that!

:-|

...what?