Users who Dugg This
Phil Perspective
9366 Followers
Janine Wallace
4729 Followers
Morgan Sheridan
227 Followers
I am Anomaly
14740 Followers
Cosmic Surfer - WE ARE the 99%
3670 Followers
Julie Tucker
2553 Followers
Away for a while
3984 Followers
workfaster
418 Followers
karmashockMay 30, 2011
Wrong. You idiots want to invalidate the constitution by interpreting it in ways that you know damn well don't conform to the intentions.
And with that you invalidate the whole foundation of the republic. If you actually got everything you wanted... you'd get states simply refusing to comply. And while I'm sure you're overawed by the grandeur of federal power, the vast majority of it's power comes from the consent and cooperation of the governed.
Screw with the social contract enough and you'll lose that. You can already see the tears in the fabric of the country.
BACK OFF. We're not asking for anything but for the assault on the constitution and American freedom to be stopped. If you can't manage that then bring on the destruction because the country isn't worth saving if it isn't free.
dirtyfriesMay 30, 2011
It's easy to ignore the constitution when your beliefs are predicated on another, slightly more religious document and a lifestyle based on civil liberties of 50 years ago.
barackalypseMay 30, 2011
And on the flip side, its also easy to ignore the Constitution when you think you're trying to help the weak and disadvantaged.
xophermvMay 30, 2011
And it's easy to ignore the Constitution when it doesn't suit your purposes:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
"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..."
In other words, taxes are meant to pay debts, defense, and provide welfare for the people aka "the weak and disadvantaged".
barackalypseMay 31, 2011
You aren't reading it correctly, it says what they can raise taxes for, it doesn't say they may do whatever they please for the general welfare, it only says they may raise taxes for it. But don't believe me, I'll let Thomas Jefferson explain:
"For the laying of taxes is the power and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless."
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_18s10.html
xophermvMay 31, 2011
Wow, you need to take a reading comprehension course. That quote you use strengthens my position, not yours.
barackalypseMay 31, 2011
General welfare does not mean give money to "weak and disadvantaged" like you are suggesting.
xophermvMay 31, 2011
Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Report on Manufactures, "It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.
The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot."
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s21.html
In other words, the legislature determines what consists of the general welfare.
markglMay 31, 2011
That is not worded to hand out free money and food and a car and a job to people. That doesn't mean that!
slearwigMay 30, 2011
And as you never ever need the help for never ever being weak and disadvantaged, then you are obviously of The Power.
The Constitution should be highly self-evident, and never ever interpreted by any other reference, be it The Bible, Crime and Punishment, Oliver Twist, Pride and Prejudice, or any Robber Barron of oil, electricity or the Industrial Complex.
May I recommend an excellent film on the subject?
May I recommend "The Viking Queen"?
slearwigMay 31, 2011
Might we consider that the majority of the people at the time of the signing of The Constitution were previously of Indentured Servitude?
How many Colonialists arrived in The Colonies by their good fortunes and of their own Free Will?
And how many were sent here as Indentured Servants in order to satisfy a debt, or as undesirables in order to thin the swelling numbers of Commoners living in the streets of England who may have threatened The Empire by a majority?
Why did England create colonies in America, and penal colonies in Australia?
slearwigMay 31, 2011
Oh yes, and why did England ship the street urchins off to Canada to work as farm labor?
rastas11May 31, 2011
This article is BS; written for those who eat it.
austinjameshereMay 29, 2011
If you believe the right wing approach to the constitution, then you'd still have to count black people as 3/5 of a person... which I have no doubt many of them would love to do.
handuetMay 30, 2011
Counting blacks as 3/5ths of a person was an ANTI slavery move by the north to prevent the southern states from being overrepresented in the house. It was a republican who ended slavery and made this a moot point.
mtnmusicmanMay 30, 2011
But that Republican would be a Democrat today...Moot point
unattendedpancaMay 30, 2011
Only because the majority of southern Democrats joined the Republican party post '48.
unattendedpancaMay 30, 2011
I love being dugg down for stating a historical fact, just find that hilarious.
unattendedpancaMay 30, 2011
Honestly Mitman, lately I'm off the believe that anybody who follows a specific political parties philosphies should have the 'tard nomenclature attached their names. Neither Republicans or Democrats have your back, they are both self serving for whatever corporations they back at the time.
JewstinMay 30, 2011
That’s because political allegiances are as bad as religion. I choose the guy who isn’t as big of a dick because at the end of the day it doesn’t matter who you vote for their both going to f**k you anyways.
mtnmusicmanMay 30, 2011
I meant Lincoln's values....
unattendedpancaMay 31, 2011
What values are you talking about? Lincolns values on race?
"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races--that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together in terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." -- Abraham Lincoln in Seventh Debate with Douglas, c. 1858.
And of course he said this to an audience of African Americans in 1862, trying to promote the idea of voluntary deportation and colonization to a Central American mining colony:
"But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of Slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence. It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated ... "
Northerns were just as racist as Southerners, in many cases even more so. With the exception to Boston, most cities were disgusted at having blacks living and working in cohabitation with whites.
austinjameshereMay 30, 2011
The 3/5th thing was a compromise... but if you walk away from that part of history thinking the North was the bad guy, you're on the wrong side of history.
Also the "Republican party" of Lincoln shares zero in common with the Republican party of today. Just as the Democratic party back then has zero in common with the Democratic party of today... In fact, Republicans and Democrats reversed roles. It's now the Republicans who are strong in the South and fight for states rights (which has always been an issue connected to racism).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountMay 30, 2011
Oh this one-issue minded blather.
Conservatism is conservatism. Today's conservatism is linked with the GOP ...
Conservative does not equal racist.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
austinjameshereMay 30, 2011
I agree being conservative does not equal racism, but that doesn't mean the issue of states rights does not have a long interwoven history with racism, because it most certainly does.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountMay 30, 2011
No ... states' rights are states' rights.
It has nothing to do with racism. We are a Republic.
xophermvMay 30, 2011
States' rights are the traditional call of conservative racists looking to implement laws against black people.
moonriderMay 31, 2011
On the contrary State's rights was used to stop slavery not continue it, you have it just backwards. State's rights is also how Prohibition was ended, and it will be how Prohibition 2.0, the PATRIOT and other illegal acts, like TSA groping, are ended. The original intent of the Constitution was to create a weak federal government that would keep peace between the several States, and the States were to be individual sovereign States where each State could be a "laboratory" of freedom, doing things their own way.
ofnumbersMay 30, 2011
Conservatism is directly correlated to retaining the general traits and financial systems of a country. In this, any outsider (women, minorities, [so a white man in niger, or a black man in kansas] dissimilar religions, youthful voters etc.) is usually a f**kwad, American conservatism or not.
Conservatism is conservatism.
icwydMay 30, 2011
Where is your degree? Where have you been published? You are lying again quirk.
barackalypseMay 30, 2011
You should re-read the Constitution, particularly the 15th Amendment which prevents using race as a voting qualification. You see, the original authors of the document included a way to modify it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
diggduggjoeMay 30, 2011
Article V is the way to alter the Constitution, not judges.
Judges do not determine what is constitution to the President or the Congress, just what they determine is constitution in their part of the federal government. The judiciary cannot force the President to do anything. The judiciary cannot force Congress to write laws or change them.
A President could simply stop executing laws that he feels are unconstitutional. No President need execute any warrant on anybody, regardless how much any judge wishes it. The President cannot force Congress to write laws or change them.
The whole reason of having 3 branches is it demands all 3 must work in unison to f**k us over. Unfortunately, they ARE all working together to f**k us over!
icwydMay 30, 2011
So barackalypse, what is your qualification as a constitutional scholar? Why do you have an opinion? A stupid person such as yourself should not be showing your ignorance. It embarrasses me.
kalvinbMay 30, 2011
It counts *slaves* as 3/5ths. Free persons (including blacks) were always counted as 1 person. Reading comprehension fail.
vbdonMay 30, 2011
That was changed by the lawful method off adding amendments. The Constitution is not a "living document" that gets to be changed by elitist judges who thing they are above society. To maintain that it is is to say the Constitution is just a piece of paper with no legal authority.
diggduggjoeMay 30, 2011
The Constitution is a contract and is not open to interpretation far from original intent, especially by only one party to the contract. The Constitution has 3 parties, the People, the States and the federal government.
What we have today is like having a husband interpret his marriage contract to allow infidelity due to it being a living document (and the nanny is hot) without renegotiating the contract with his wife. Then he keeps it binding upon her.
That is no longer a voluntary contract between free people. It is tyranny!
vbdonMay 30, 2011
Still practicing you habit of being just plain wrong I see. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. There is no part of the Constitution that allows it to be written by every half cracked jurist pulled out of the elitist schools of law.
The Constitution clearly states that it is up to the Congress to pass new laws with the approval of the President or with a 2/3 majority of both houses. Nowhere, is there a provision allowing the Supreme Court to replace those two entities just because its "superior intellect" permits it.
After 50 years of idiotic court rulings, we finally have a court that recognizes the wisdom of a Tripartite Government is far superior to the imagined enlightenment of 5 individuals.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
moonriderMay 31, 2011
I hope you were not saying diggduggjoe is wrong, because he is correct, reread what he wrote. The SCOTUS is supposed to interpret the Constitution but it is NOT supposed to find stuff in it to give more power to the federal government that isn't there in the Constitution (which, since FDR, it does all the time, especially as concerns the commerce clause and the "general welfare" phrase in the preamble). Nor is it supposed to ignore the original meaning (which it also does). That is why juries have the power to nullify a law by finding the law to be at fault rather than the defendant, so that individuals on juries would be the final check on government becoming too powerful.
You all need to begin watching Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano and Michael Badnarik's Constitution class, because your public education has left you severely lacking in correct knowledge about our governing document.
jagedlionMay 30, 2011
That was taken care of in an amendment as Baraklypse mentions. That part is fine. Heck, without amendments, can't we not even have an income tax? I think the Republican point is that overt changes to the constitutions functions should require that 2/3rds majority to amend it rather than the will of a judge who is not directly responsible to the people.
(take that as you may, I can see why that might makes judges better to make these decisions, but may make citizens feel more marginalized)
Edit: Nice call kalvin, I didn't even think of that.
jackedMay 30, 2011
The Constitution never declared that blacks were 3/5ths of a person. It stated that for the purpose of determining how many representatives a state is allowed, you add the number of free Persons and 3/5 of all others.
This was not an insult to blacks (and as mentioned below, color wasn't mentioned, it applied to all non-"free Persons"), it was actually to reduce the political power of slave owners.
Just give up on the 3/5ths mantra. As more and more people learn the truth, that argument just looks more and more silly.
andrew1193May 30, 2011
Liar. The constitution merely specified that 3/5ths of all slaves were to be counted for the purposes of representation. The constitution makes no judgement as to their humanity.
novenatorMay 29, 2011
FTA - "It [new originalism] allows “conservatives” to create their own living constitution and advance a form of judicial activism, while claiming to be simply engaged in an act of constitutional redemption"
That nails it. We have the most ultra-conservative activist Supreme Court and Federal Benches perhaps in the entire history of the country (at least since FDR became president). "Citizens United" for instance, where in the constitution does it say that corporations are people and they have free speech rights? It is a gross twisting of the words to hijack our democracy for an oligarchy.
Closed AccountMay 30, 2011
It's WRONG when people do not abide by the rules in ANYONE'S constitution!
http://digg.com/search?q=Why+the+Right-Wing%27s+Approach+to+Reading+the+Constitution+Is+&submit=
^^^
Alternutters get different rules ... dupe and dupe and dupe and dupe.
Hey ... the record was 8 dupes ... with the one you submitted making the front page.
Why don't people trust/respect liberals? I wonder....Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
caredjoMay 30, 2011
So, what?
icwydMay 30, 2011
I can see the GPS is raging today for you quirky-baby!
vbdonMay 30, 2011
Elitist liberals have been trying to destroy the Constitution with illegal means for 50 years. We now have a court that maintains it is the Supreme Law of the Land. Thank God, we finally have a respite from the liberal scum that has tried to overthrow our democratic republic.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719May 30, 2011
There is a disturbing lack of citations among your multiple ad hominem attacks.
Liberal scum? What are you, an Imperial Officer commanding a unit of right-wing Storm Troopers?
vbdonMay 30, 2011
No, but I have a respect for the Constitution lacking in the low lifes who want to trash it on their alter of socialist dogma.
xophermvMay 30, 2011
Again, you offer zero evidence for your claims that liberals want to trash the Constitution. Your claims mean nothing.
ncmusicMay 30, 2011
You also fail at debating and discussion.
icwydMay 30, 2011
So you are? What is your degree in constitutional law? What papers have you written vbdon? Why should we listen to a freak like you and quirk? What is your definition of socialism, same as quirk's? Or is it even more retarded and non-existent.
isaac7719May 30, 2011
Could you please name one thing the "liberal scum low lifes" want to do that trashes the Constitution?
Oh, and that one thing that you list should at least match the extremity of the more conservative attempts to subvert the Constitution, such as the Patriot Act, the entire Department of Homeland Security, TSA Screenings, Public Surveillance via military drone aircraft, criminalizing the filming of police officers in uniform, continuing the disastrous war on drugs, continuing the illegal war on 'terror', promoting institutionalizing Christianity into the government, requiring mexicans to 'carry their papers' everywhere they go, suppressing dissenting religious viewpoints, and banning gay marriage...just to name a few.
vbdonMay 31, 2011
I suppose you also think WWII was a plot to subvert the Constitution. All of the liberal responses I've received lack any sense of logic or basis in fact. I guess I win by default.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719May 31, 2011
No one said anything about World War II. And you haven't presented any facts, logic or reason so far either. What's your point, anyways?
isaac7719May 31, 2011
Umm...no one said anything about World War II. I don't know why you would even come to that conclusion either, because that doesn't make much sense. And you haven't presented any facts, logic or reason so far either. What's your point, anyways?
ferencofbudaMay 30, 2011
vbdon, you are an ass. Even as a Canadian I think I know more about America's constitution than you. You can't seem to make any comment without resorting to cheap shots and insults like a screaming toddler having a temper tantrum. You, sir, epitomize just about everything non-Americans think of when they use the term "ugly American". Your example is why more and more of us foreigners look upon America with disgust and fear.
vbdonMay 31, 2011
Your life of fear is more properly attributed to the Canadian sense of "going with the flow" even when it damages their country. You should wonder why Canada has institutionalized racism and totally failed at creating a single national identity after almost 200 years of independence from the mother country.
I doubt very much that you have any real insight into our Constitution as you prefer to argue using mindless anti-American insults while relying on our economy and social system to constantly support your own.
P.S. Don't forget that if you get sick you can still rely on the best healthcare system in the world, just south of your border.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ferencofbudaMay 31, 2011
you are so full of it! you accuse Canada of having institutionalized racism?! Now THAT is the pot calling the kettle black! And we do have a national identity, it is just more of a mosaic than the melting-pot that America has been described as, which is neither good nor bad, just different. your anti-Canadianism is every bit as insulting and "mindless". I wasn't criticizing Americans in general, just your opinions in particular! Your perception of the American healthcare system is a joke. We in Canada don't let people die in emergency wards because they can't afford health insurance! Or shuffle people like cattle to state-funded hospitals, jeopardizing their lives in the process, because they have no insurance. What a good system you have, if you can pay for it, and if you can't, well you can just go home and remain sick, or die! As far as our economy goes, we could do quite well with less American influence, more trade with others, and a return to more domestic manufacturing. Dependence goes both ways, bub. You want our water now, because you in America have been too stupid to husband your resources properly, and are facing shortages, and you buy an awful lot of our grain and other resources! If trade were to sharply decline between our two nations, it would hurt you more than us, in the long run: we have lots of resources and you folks have squandered much of yours.
skywiseMay 30, 2011
"where in the constitution does it say that corporations are people and they have free speech rights"
Again because you and Obama don't seem to understand this:
The constitution is a negative document. Anything not listed in the constitution is left up to the state constitutions and anything not in the state constitutions is left up to the people to decide what is right and what is wrong.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. PERIOD.
But in Novenator's eyes, that makes a court... Teh EVIL "conservative" one.
Funny... I think that makes it a TRUE "liberal" court.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
xophermvMay 30, 2011
Ok, when corporations can actually speak, we won't abridge it.
vbdonMay 31, 2011
The last time I read it, it said everyone has the right to free speech and that the government doesn't have the right to restrict that right just because someone has a job. Show me where "free speech" is limited to welfare recipients and corrupt union bosses.
thewriteguyMay 30, 2011
Right wing didn't give crap about the Constitution when their man was President.
Closed AccountMay 30, 2011
Yes, many of us did and do.
woollymittensMay 30, 2011
It just wasn't a majority, apparently.
Closed AccountMay 30, 2011
Tell me it's different now? You all were so OUTRAGED THEN ... now that your guy's continuing the EXACT SAME policies ... you're pretty quiet.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
craigreedMay 30, 2011
Quiet my ass, Liberals are furious with the continuation of those policies you just choose to ignore that for the sake of your argument.
Closed AccountMay 30, 2011
I totally believe that. I mean, really I do ...
icwydMay 30, 2011
Where is your degree? Where have you been published? You are lying again quirk. Cute capitalization. You are a freak!
icwydMay 30, 2011
Where is your degree? Where have you been published? You are lying again quirk.
vbdonMay 30, 2011
Same old liberal claptrap of those who say the Constitution should be ignored and that liberal judges should be allowed to rewrite it at will even if opposed by the people and the laws of the nation. By constantly claiming the Constitution is a "living document", they are saying it is irrelevant and that politically appointed judges should be granted dictatorial power to tear it up whenever they feel it opposes their socialist ideological views. They seek to steal power from the people and vest total power in the social elite.
Fortunately, there are still a few who oppose them and maintain that the rights of the people cannot be infringed by a gaggle of left wing kooks.
Closed AccountMay 30, 2011
Partisan hack bulls**t. Both sides alter the document.
vbdonMay 31, 2011
My side doesn't alter anything. The Constitution stands far more strongly than left wing attempts to subvert it.
Closed AccountMay 31, 2011
Ever hear of the Patriot Act? The laws for voting ids? The Iraq war? Torture?
fluxMay 30, 2011
The constitution is not a living document period. Try reading it you morons it is simple and plainly written with meanings that are as clear today as they were 2 centuries ago, it doesn't not need interpretation. Those who want to interpret it only want to change it to their view
unattendedpancaMay 30, 2011
Actually you will find most historians will say that much of the constitution is written vaguely on purpose to force courts and legislators to attempt to define it in their own ways. For precedent, look at the fights in the early years of our republic over the elastic clause.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fluxMay 30, 2011
yea most historians who support the "living constitution" would
unattendedpancaMay 30, 2011
It is a living constitution, hence the concept of amendments.
fluxMay 30, 2011
no the reason for amendments was so it could be changed and has nothing to do with the so called living interpenetration of the constitution. If times change, the document can be changed by the people of the united states no interpreted by a single/ few judges and mandated to the people of the united states
unattendedpancaMay 30, 2011
Isn't that the idea of a living constitution? A constitution that can mold and adapt to changing tides? Maybe I'm confused by the concept.
markglMay 31, 2011
Fear mongering from the left.
moonriderMay 31, 2011
The left is far likelier to distort the Constitution than the right. Tho the social conservatives on the right abuse it as much as the left does.
The libertarians and the libertarian leaning right want government to uphold the original intent, which was that government stays the hell out of the private lives of the people and their businesses and only does what the Constitution's enumerated powers say it may do. If we do NOT uphold and honor that original intent we are headed for tyranny, already we are living in a police state due to activist judges "interpreting" and twisting the meaning of the Constitution and destroying the rule of law and most of the Bill of Rights.
Wake up people if you do not defend the Constitution you are not defending, in fact you are helping to destroy, the uSofA, which used to be the freest country on Earth, but now is no longer free. When citizens must ask permission of some government agency to exercise their natural rights they are no longer free.
dachipzMay 30, 2011
How many people remember that of the 9 sitting justices, 3 were appointed by Bushs and 2 by Reagan? Men of such sound judgement themselves ;)
Closed AccountMay 30, 2011
Golly ... we don't have checks and balances or anything!
icwydMay 30, 2011
Where is your degree? Where have you been published? You are lying again quirk.
theswashbucklerMay 30, 2011
Could shorten the title to "Why the right-wing is destroying the country"
yaosioMay 30, 2011
They don't read the constitution, they just make up whatever they want it to say. That's why torture is somehow no longer cruel and unusual.
barackalypseMay 30, 2011
If the framers intended a "living document" approach, they wouldn't have included a process to amend the Consittution, since it wouldn't be necessary since you'd interpret it in whatever way you felt it needed to be interpreted to accomplish whatever your goals were. For that matter, a living document is rather useless sinceit basically says "intepret this however you think society wants".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedMay 30, 2011
So where does abortion fit in?
barackalypseMay 30, 2011
Federal and State law, the same as nearly everything else since the Constitution lists the powers that the Feds have. The Constitution only defines one crime, treason.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountMay 30, 2011
you are retarded
well, we'd have to decide when a fetus is a "person" and has rights ... and everyone wants to ignore this issue ... it's above their "pay grade."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
icwydMay 30, 2011
^^^^^ digg patriots. What are your credentials for constitutional law. Barackalypse says that he taught it but can't spell it. What idiots. Leave, you are embarrassing yourselves. What a bunch of freaks
icwydMay 30, 2011
What are your credentials barackalypse?
woollymittensMay 30, 2011
Why the Right-Wing's Approach ... Is Destroying This Country. FTFY
starjotsMay 30, 2011
The antidote is one or more constitutional amendments that reflect a few realities of the 21st century.
barackalypseMay 30, 2011
I'm Digging you up because at least you understand that Amendments were how the Constitution was intended to evolve to reflect any changes in the way society views issues, not some nebulous "living document" crap which is basically code for "whatever we want".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
xophermvMay 30, 2011
Well, "original intent" also translates to "whatever we want" given that the founders didn't agree on how the country should run. The people pushing "original intent" pick and choose from the founders which they agree with and ignore the writings that don't support their views.
dusanmalMay 30, 2011
On "murky" issues - maybe. But on obvious ones, sorry no "interpretations". Examples:
Does Constitution exactly specify what are duties of Federal Government and that anything not listed in those is NOT to be done by Federal Government? Yes. There is absolutely no interpretation or "interpretation" needed.
Does Constitution say anything about e-mail, cell-phone and Internet privacy? Not directly. Those did not exist at the time. Interpretation is needed. Basis for interpretation exists, privacy rights were defined for all equivalents existing at the time.
Conservatives protect the examples of the first type. Liberals actively attack the examples of the first type as anything Liberal is in direct contradiction with very trivial basics of the Constitution. Both Conservatives and Liberals pick and choose how to interpret examples of the second type, for political purposes of each.
jackedMay 30, 2011
Next up, we explore the counterpoint: Why the Left-Wing's Approach to Ignoring the Constitution Is Destroying This Country
Is it just me, or does it seem silly to NOT go by the intent of the Constitution? If you think the intent is wrong, there are already mechanisms in place to make changes to the Constitution. Use them!
After all, the Constitution is the law, not a bunch of suggestions.
Closed AccountMay 30, 2011
RIGHT!
o76923May 30, 2011
Yes but how do courts rule when there isn't anything explicit in the constitution on an issue? They have to infer intent. This was established as how the Supreme court works in Marbury... back in 1803.
jackedMay 31, 2011
Yep, I agree. But the article seems to argue that the original intent doesn't matter: "that judges ought to interpret the Constitution as a living document and read it in light of contemporary values or an evolving tradition."
That's what I disagree with. If the Constitution says one thing, but you WANT it to say something else, amend it.
jsffiveMay 30, 2011
Don't really give a s**t about how Alternet thinks the Constitution SHOULD be read...
Here's a sample:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Please... SOMEONE... PLEASE... tell me what the f**k is vague or confusing about that ONE SIMPLE LAW...
And by the way, when trying to figure out exactly what a particular part of the Constitution means, WHY WOULDN'T we refer to the people who WROTE the goddamn thing?!?!
No. It's MORE LIKELY that the bulls**t artist authoritarians over at Alternet are just pissed off and crying, because they can't trick-f**k the law to serve them. They can't do whatever they want with OUR MONEY... as long as the LAW has been written down somewhere where THEY (both red and blue) can't twist it to serve their own authoritarian urges.
f**k Alternet.
gkiltzMay 30, 2011
So is the far left. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Where? That's the problem!
Closed AccountMay 30, 2011
its pure right trash, and they do love their ignorance and the liars who sell it to them so dear...
It's all a matter of faith you see, and if you had the right kind you would see their light.
jagedlionMay 30, 2011
You know, honestly I'm fine either way. After all, most people agree on most issues, we really shouldn't be split Democrat-Republican for everything the legislature sees.
So long as the document keeps evolving either through legislation or jurisdiction to match what society needs, I don't really care how it gets there.
Now... granted that everything does somehow become a partisan issue, I can see the usefulness in letting judges, who's only stake is their own conscience for the most part, evolve the document rather than the same people who benefit from ridiculous politics.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vbdonMay 30, 2011
Same old liberal claptrap of those who say the Constitution should be ignored and that liberal judges should be allowed to rewrite it at will even if opposed by the people and the laws of the nation. By constantly claiming the Constitution is a "living document", they are saying it is irrelevant and that politically appointed judges should be granted dictatorial power to tear it up whenever they feel it opposes their socialist ideological views. They seek to steal power from the people and vest total power in the social elite.
Fortunately, there are still a few who oppose them and maintain that the rights of the people cannot be infringed by a gaggle of left wing kooks.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedMay 30, 2011
What liberal judges have used judicial activism?
Closed AccountMay 30, 2011
Oh please ... that's a simple Google away....
icwydMay 30, 2011
Where is your degree? Where have you been published? You are lying again quirk.
vbdonMay 30, 2011
Try reading a history book. You will find your answer spanning the last 50 years. Since you have already avoided this, try reading some of the crap coming out of the 9th Circuit Court, the most overturned court in the country. Winning a case in that court is the same as losing.
youareretardedMay 30, 2011
So in other words do the research for you.
You guys are awesome! I give you a chance to prove your point and you put up nothing.
vbdonMay 31, 2011
There is no use arguing with an empty mind. You haven't provided a single fact to support you ideological idiocy. You lose, as always.
youareretardedMay 31, 2011
You aren't too bright are you? Can you show me where I made any kind of claim? I can show you where you made such a claim, here is a hint it's your first post in this thread.
2012ronpaulMay 30, 2011
Thanks for this liberal gibberish.