|
||||||
 |
Recent Posts | Search by username | |
Contact Us | |
Login | |
Register |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
24HourForums.com > The Top 10 Supported Forums > 24's Political Matters > Is the Constitution a "living document" |
| Moderated by: 24HourNut | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...   |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
sirlamre Pioneer100© Member Official Forum Troublemaker
|
  |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Simple poll -- Is the Constitution a "living document"??? Yes or no?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator  Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think it is if you define "living" as able to be Amended and adapted through the Amendment process.
 The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
muddawber Guardian1000© Member 
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
My belief, and what I was always taught in school, is that the Constitution is a legal document, between the citizens of the United States of America, and the United States Government. People have tried to make it a living document, so that it would fit the "needs" of the day, by re-interpreting it to fit the whims of those who wished to change it. The constitution is amendable, so that as needs arise, it could take care of those needs. To me, making a new interpretation only serves to weaken the document, but by amending it makes it stronger. I personally think the constitution should always be interpreted in the original context it was written and by the intent of those who wrote it. Therefore, it is a legal and not a living, document. If you enter a contract with someone, would you want them to re-interpret it in mid stream, and say this is what they mean now, and not what they meant in the beginning. I think not. I think you would want them to honor the original intent of the contract, and if anything needed to be changed, to re-negotiate the contract.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
foxglovepress Forum-Blogger© Original500© Member  NON-PC!!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
muddawber wrote: My belief, and what I was always taught in school, is that the Constitution is a legal document, between the citizens of the United States of America, and the United States Government. I agree with Mud completely! Of course if the ACLU has anything to say, it's a living document! Which......is another reason why I agree that it's not!! Last edited on 03:44 am by foxglovepress Justice for Mark.....Imprison Employers Who Hire ILLEGALS! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
JustifiedByFaith Pioneer100© Member  Jesus...above every other name
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think those in the "It's living" camp have a similar mindset like we find in some of the modern day religions out there. "Oh that bible is soooooooo outdated. It's time for a fresh new religion that feels better and is more user friendly."
Jesus said, "Take heed that no one deceives you." Matthew 24:4 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
muddawber Guardian1000© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JustifiedByFaith wrote: I think those in the "It's living" camp have a similar mindset like we find in some of the modern day religions out there. I couldn't agree more, JBF.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation 
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't think the Constitution is a living document. As Muddawber said, it's a legal document. Having said that, because it is a legal document, it is subject to interpretation. Interpreting a clause in the Constitution in the year 1808 isn't going to give you the same results as it would in 2008. The "original intent" doctrine fails when some clauses butt up against the modern world. Protection against unreasonable search and seizure is an excellent example. What's reasonable is more complicated when you're no longer dealing with physical objects, but instead dealing with electronic documents encrypted with 256-bit encryption keys on an external hard drive that might be in plain sight.  would the Constitution possibly have to say about that?So generally speaking, the Constitution isn't a living document, but that doesn't mean it's not subject to interpretation. And that interpretation (through judicial review) is what we have the Supreme Court for. If everyone could agree what the Constitution meant and how the original intent applies to the current situation, we wouldn't need the 9 old people in robes. 
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
foxglovepress Forum-Blogger© Original500© Member NON-PC!!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian wrote: I don't think the Constitution is a living document. As Muddawber said, it's a legal document. Good point Brian! The problem as I see it is, depending on which political party picks a judge, will have a lot to do with the interpretation of the document! We should be very cautious when it comes to trying to change something that's meant to be a fixed (so to speak) document.
Justice for Mark.....Imprison Employers Who Hire ILLEGALS! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foxglovepress wrote: Brian wrote:I don't think the Constitution is a living document. As Muddawber said, it's a legal document. Well, I don't think the Constitution is really meant to be a "fixed" document. If it was, the framers wouldn't have put in the amendment process. The text itself isn't fixed, but the interpretation of the text is what should be fixed. Once a meaning is decided on, that should be it. Our constitution is a set text, unlike, say Great Britain's constitution, which is a collection of legal decisions on cases.
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
muddawber Guardian1000© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian wrote: I don't think the Constitution is a living document. As Muddawber said, it's a legal document. Still, the original intent of the Constitution should be carefully looked at, and taken into consideration. Too many times, decisions are made based on the feelings of the one doing the interpretation, and is not always in the best interest of the majority. I still feel that when this happens, it weakens the document.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
muddawber wrote: Brian wrote:I don't think the Constitution is a living document. As Muddawber said, it's a legal document.Still, the original intent of the Constitution should be carefully looked at, and taken into consideration. Too many times, decisions are made based on the feelings of the one doing the interpretation, and is not always in the best interest of the majority. I still feel that when this happens, it weakens the document. I agree that the original intent needs to be carefully looked at. However, I don't think the best interest of the majority has anything to do with it. The majority changes. The Constitution is a static piece of text. What the majority wants has no relationship to what the text says. The Supreme Court isn't appointed to do what the citizens want. Its job is to make sure that the Constitution is adhered to as written. If the Constitution needs to be changed, that falls to the legislature. The gray area, IMHO, is how the text applies to a particular situation. If the issue is clear-cut, it should never get to the Supreme Court level in the first place.
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
JustifiedByFaith Pioneer100© Member Jesus...above every other name
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Supreme Court can interpret. The problem is re-interpretation. There is "original intent" for example using the biblical writers. When people do not research an author's "original intent"... they tend to make things say what they want them to say.
Jesus said, "Take heed that no one deceives you." Matthew 24:4 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JustifiedByFaith wrote: The Supreme Court can interpret. The problem is re-interpretation. There is "original intent" for example using the biblical writers. When people do not research an author's "original intent"... they tend to make things say what they want them to say. I think mixing interpretation of the Bible with interpretation of the Constitution is problematic. The Constitution is a legal document, while the Bible is a religious and literary document. Moreover, the "original intent" of the authors of the Bible is harder to discern, because the authorship of the Bible isn't really nailed down, other than by tradition, and even the thoughts of the traditional authors aren't as well-documented as the thoughts of those who wrote the Constitution.
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
JustifiedByFaith Pioneer100© Member Jesus...above every other name
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
That's fair.
Jesus said, "Take heed that no one deceives you." Matthew 24:4 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
muddawber Guardian1000© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Here is one of the things I am getting at about the original intent. The original intent of the 14th amendment, was to insure that the newly freed slaves had their citizenship and constitutional rights. The, the Supreme Court interprets it as children born in this country being automatic citizens. The problem now, is that we have 12 to 20 million illegals in this country that are reproducing like rabbits, and banking on the 14th to make their children citizens, so they can reap the benefits of our system. It is estimated that there are between 300 and 500 thousand children born to illegals per year. How is our country going to afford this, when the majority of these immigrants are not paying into the system, but rather sending remittances back to Mexico. And, because of this interpretation, and the bleeding hearts in this country, we are stuck with a problem that has no solution.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourForums.com > The Top 10 Supported Forums > 24's Political Matters > Is the Constitution a "living document" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Site Supporters | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Posts Of The Day | Mock Forums | WowClassic | |
Themes and most mods done in collaboration with: WowClassic - powerful forum software with the best support service.
We are partners with Forum Owner Services
Powered by - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez
We are partners with Forum Owner Services
Powered by - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez