Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

bmaestro · Feb 17, 2004, 03:15 pm

We're always told that the constitution is always open to new interpretation, and this allows for the basic principles of the united states to be applied to all the new situations that arise in our culture. However, its possible that the document is too maliable, in that its so easily seen in a different way that it can be exploited by those who see a way to personally gain from it. In some ways it regulates the balance of power, and in other ways it can be exploited to shift that balance. Just think of bush preaching freedom, which is the basis of the constitution, while shifting popular interpretations of the freedoms set forth by the document. Thoughts?
-b

dotcoma · Feb 17, 2004, 03:29 pm

Bush has stated, " There should be limits to freedom"...

bmaestro · Feb 17, 2004, 03:44 pm

thats just another interpretation of the document though, just asking to what extent do these freedoms apply?

Should the constitution even be open to these kinds of interpretations though? When bush says there should be limits to freedom, he's basically saying that he sees the freedoms in the constitution as guidelines. others could see them as rules that must by respected. What do you all think? Should there be some definite guide of how to interpret the constitution that will keep it free from exploitation?

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 17, 2004, 06:55 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (makeshiftpatriot,)
Should the constitution even be open to these kinds of interpretations though?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Why not? It's just a piece of paper with some lofty platitudes, contradictions, and vague gibberish about giving congress and the president certain powers. In fact, I think it's time to trash it, since no one pays any attention to it (except when they want to justify kicking someone's ass, or use it as an excuse for doing whatever else they want to do). In fact, most people use it the way Christians use the bible. They interpret it to mean whatever they want it to mean. Why not just admit you want to do something and do it? What purpose is served by claiming it's "constitutional"?

--Jackney Sneeb

Edge · Feb 17, 2004, 11:02 pm

This is FUNNY!

A contract is a piece of paper with words on it. (true) But the US makes a BIG DEAL about it being a nation of laws and not a nation of men. The Unanimous Declaration (aka: Declaration of Independence) and the Constitution serve as the foundational documents for our system of government. A society can only stand as long as it treats those pieces of paper with respect.

The only way to consistently interpret a foundational document is to interpret it in light of what the writers said it meant. In the case of the Constitution, there are a plethora of documents depicting exactly what the writers meant. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, documents by Jefferson, Madison, and others. However, at times by accident, and times by design, both Republicans and Democrats have filled the court(s) with activists willing to “interpret” the constitution to say whatever they wanted it to say. This is a very convenient short cut to getting what you want: Abortion, social programs, wealth re-distribution schemes, gay “marriage”, etc.

So now to justify this behavior, we have a new invention which makeshiftpatriot elucidates: “We're always told that the constitution is always open to new interpretation, and this allows for the basic principles of the united states to be applied to all the new situations that arise in our culture.” This is a false argument that can be demonstrated in the following situation.

Let us suppose that you entered into a contract with another party to build your house. At some point in the performance of the contract, the other party decided that they wanted to finish your house with wire frame and paper mache’ instead of brick, wood, and siding. But the other party went to a judge and said that they should be able to change the terms of the original contract and you should just learn to like paper mache’. The judge could do two things, he could say that the contract is a living, breathing document and allow the contractor to finish the house the way they want, or they could decide that a contract is a contract and that the contractor needs to either abide by the contract or deal with the consequences. I would expect that you would want that contact enforced according to the terms that YOU had negotiated with the other party. Ie: your original intent.

The constitution is no different. It serves as a FIXED reference or it serves no basis of law. If the courts really come up with a novel situation, then they should of course rule as close to the original intent of the framers. But more often than not, they now use their power to create law in line with their own desires. This is not rule of law, but is instead a government ruled by a high council of 9, unaccountable to anyone but their own conscience, should they bother to have one.

If you don’t like what the constitution says however, the framers provided a mechanism for modifying the constitution. That is of course, the amendment process. But it’s hard to pass an amendment and so easy to just ignore the law. To quote Pres. Clinton’s aid Paul Begala: “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty cool.” And if you recognize that Begala was speaking of executive orders and not the constitution and say “Hey that’s not what he meant!”

That’s my point exactly.

Edge

james? · Feb 18, 2004, 01:57 am

I really don't think the constitution should be open to interpretation.

However, I think I may agree with Sneeb that we should just scrap it or something... I mean, it's not flawless. Wasn't the fucking three-fifths comprimise originally included? Anyone wanting to manipulate the freedoms it awards us could argue it's outdatedness right there.

Feb 18, 2004, 02:41 am

Oh the need for lawyers..they'll never go away because of how flexible a document we have. Nevertheless, it's the best we've come up with so far

**Pooeypants** · Feb 18, 2004, 06:39 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (roxdog,)
Bush has stated, " There should be limits to freedom"...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Although I'm not a supporter of Bush, I must say I hate it when people quote out of context. :rolleyes:

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 18, 2004, 07:14 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
This is FUNNY!

A contract is a piece of paper with words on it. (true) But the US makes a BIG DEAL about it being a nation of laws and not a nation of men.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
That's just propaganda. Don't believe it.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
The Unanimous Declaration (aka: Declaration of Independence) and the Constitution serve as the foundational documents for our system of government. A society can only stand as long as it treats those pieces of paper with respect.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
The Declaration of Independence said essentially that when the government does stuff we don't like, we have a duty to abolish or overthrow it, violently if necessary. The constitution superseded that with "Congress shall have Power To . . .suppress Insurrections."
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
The only way to consistently interpret a foundational document is to interpret it in light of what the writers said it meant.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Why? Why is that the only way? In whose judgment?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
In the case of the Constitution, there are a plethora of documents depicting exactly what the writers meant. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, documents by Jefferson, Madison, and others. However, at times by accident, and times by design, both Republicans and Democrats have filled the court(s) with activists willing to “interpret” the constitution to say whatever they wanted it to say. This is a very convenient short cut to getting what you want: Abortion, social programs, wealth re-distribution schemes, gay “marriage”, etc.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
The founders are all dead. Why should we the living be bound by their ideas, if we have come to believe that some of their ideas were flat wrong?

And why shouldn't we get what we want? What's wrong with what you want?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
So now to justify this behavior, we have a new invention which makeshiftpatriot elucidates: “We're always told that the constitution is always open to new interpretation, and this allows for the basic principles of the united states to be applied to all the new situations that arise in our culture.” This is a false argument that can be demonstrated in the following situation.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
It's irrelevant. The consitution is just a piece of paper on which some long-dead wig-wearin' honkies scribbled some lofty prose. It only means what you think it means, nothing more, nothing less. Why should anyone be expected to bow to your interpretation of it, or anyone else's?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
The constitution is no different. It serves as a [1]FIXED reference or it serves [2]no basis of law.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I pick #2. It serves no basis of law. It's a friggen' piece of paper, for Chrissake. It can't enforce jack squat without a real human being with a gun in front of it, and that human being is going to interpret it to suit his needs, not that of people who aren't around anymore.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
If the courts really come up with a novel situation, then they should of course rule as close to the original intent of the framers. But more often than not, they now use their power to create law in line with their own desires.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Why shouldn't they?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
This is not rule of law, but is instead a government ruled by a high council of 9, unaccountable to anyone but their own conscience, should they bother to have one.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
That's true, and that's the way the constitution set it up. "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution . . ." Nowhere does it say, "unless the president, or congress, or the people disagree with their judgment." All it requires of them is "good Behavior."
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
If you don’t like what the constitution says however, the framers provided a mechanism for modifying the constitution. That is of course, the amendment process.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
What about the Declaration of Independence? It says we can abolish it. You can't have a society if you don't respect the Declaration, you said.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
But it’s hard to pass an amendment and so easy to just ignore the law. To quote Pres. Clinton’s aid Paul Begala: “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty cool.” And if you recognize that Begala was speaking of executive orders and not the constitution and say “Hey that’s not what he meant!”

That’s my point exactly.

Edge<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
You can see that the guys in power don't give a crap about the constitution. Why do you?

--Jackney Sneeb

Edge · Feb 18, 2004, 12:18 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
This is FUNNY!

A contract is a piece of paper with words on it. (true) But the US makes a BIG DEAL about it being a nation of laws and not a nation of men.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
That's just propaganda. Don't believe it.<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
This is not rule of law, but is instead a government ruled by a high council of 9, unaccountable to anyone but their own conscience, should they bother to have one.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
That's true, and that's the way the constitution set it up. "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution . . ." Nowhere does it say, "unless the president, or congress, or the people disagree with their judgment." All it requires of them is "good Behavior."
You can see that the guys in power don't give a crap about the constitution. Why do you?

--Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Because I value liberty. By your own admission (and I do appreciate your sarcasm; one of my gifts as well), the alternative to interpreting the constitution according to it's original intent, is to render this not a nation of laws, but of judicial fiat. Judicial fiat that has allowed wealth redistribution schemes, the elimination of the respect for private property rights, and mandated a disrespect of life. As you quote, the supreme court, vested with the judicial power, [emphasis mine] should be the final check on both legislative and administrative action, not the main instigator in the decline of liberty.

The fact that the court has for the most part abandoned it's responsibility to show restraint, (not good behavior at all), does not mean that I need to abandon my advocay of liberty.

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 18, 2004, 03:07 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)

Because I value liberty. By your own admission (and I do appreciate your sarcasm; one of my gifts as well), the alternative to interpreting the constitution according to it's original intent, is to render this not a nation of laws, but of judicial fiat. Judicial fiat that has allowed wealth redistribution schemes, the elimination of the respect for private property rights, and mandated a disrespect of life. As you quote, the supreme court, vested with the judicial power, [emphasis mine] should be the final check on both legislative and administrative action, not the main instigator in the decline of liberty.

The fact that the court has for the most part abandoned it's responsibility to show restraint, (not good behavior at all), does not mean that I need to abandon my advocay of liberty.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
And by your own admission, the constitution did nothing to prevent all that, so it obviously doesn't work.

I advocate liberty, too. That's why I reject the idea that politicians can have the power to rule and rob just because a piece of paper says so.

--Jackney Sneeb

bmaestro · Feb 18, 2004, 07:38 pm

The constitution can't go by a consistant interpretation through time. If you view it to be exactly how the writers intended, you may as well take into consideration that the writer, having been persecuted for their form of christianity in europe, wrote in the freedom of religion clause basically to say you can practice whatever sect of christianity you want without fear of persecution. Essentially if we still saw freedom of religion this way, we'd be living in the stone age when it came to social equality. The document has to be subject to new interpretation or culture will get stagnant. Its as simple as that.

B

Impenitent · Feb 19, 2004, 01:08 am

reinterpret and change the meanings... right to privacy? which ammendment is that? this interpretation of the seperate but equal clause clearly shows that you were born to be a slave and this interpretation of the 16th ammendment says that only you pay taxes... it means this... it means that... it means nothing...

hold on to your guns

Edge · Feb 19, 2004, 01:23 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (makeshiftpatriot,)
The constitution can't go by a consistant interpretation through time. If you view it to be exactly how the writers intended, you may as well take into consideration that the writer, having been persecuted for their form of christianity in europe, wrote in the freedom of religion clause basically to say you can practice whatever sect of christianity you want without fear of persecution. Essentially if we still saw freedom of religion this way, we'd be living in the stone age when it came to social equality. The document has to be subject to new interpretation or culture will get stagnant. Its as simple as that.

B<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Not really. The majority of the states had official churches (Christian denominations) This still allowed the fledgling US to have the greatest religious freedom in the history of the world. This was because the Christians who founded these states believed that matters of faith were individual and that as such, you were either (depending upon your denomination) unconditionally chosen by God, or were autonomous in your choice. In both cases, forceable conversion is an impossibility. (A few radicals and waco's not withstanding). That was why the first ammendment begins with Congress shall make no law.

As to your point about the need for continuous reinterpretation. I would would love to see that point defended from a consistent logical basis. Give it a shot. You could be the first!

It is the willingness of people to yield willy-nilly to the whims of personal agenda, twisting the intent of a document expressly designed to limit the bounds of government, into a document that now, contrary to it's very purpose, is used to expand the power of the state and to the ruin of individual liberty. In the words of Samuel Clemens: "No man's life or liberty is safe while congress is in session." He missed two other branches of government.

Or in the words of Samuel Adams "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue."

My anarchist neighbors like Jackney Sneeb have a point in that this experiment of a constitutional democratic representative republic, has been a failure at securing liberty, and only a moderate success at retarding it's decay. It does have the benefit however, of preserving liberty longer than any other governmental system, including anarchy. (For purposes of argument, I'll describe anarchy as a system of self-government. For those of you who disagree, and you know who you are, start a new topic.

)

bmaestro · Feb 19, 2004, 05:12 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
As to your point about the need for continuous reinterpretation. I would would love to see that point defended from a consistent logical basis. Give it a shot. You could be the first!<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

i think you're overthinking my point. I'm simply saying that our culture is remarkably differrent than it was when the constitution was written. women can vote, blacks can vote, neither of which were considered voting citizens at the constitutions inception. Of course these were actual amendments to the document, but they also imply that we need to look at the other freedoms originally granted to "citizens," and see if they too need to apply to our current definition of citizen. Its that simple. If we don't reinterpret it in light of changes in the culture, it becomes an oppressive document, working against the cultural forces of change, so culture gets stagnant.

-B

AnonT · Feb 19, 2004, 05:44 pm

"The government was set to protect man from criminals and the Constitution was written to protect man from government." - Ayn Rand

When the Constitution stops meeting it's purpose of protecting us from governmental tyranny, it's time for a new interpretation.

Edge · Feb 19, 2004, 06:27 pm

I found this quote today. I shamlessly stole it from: http://www.derbyfals.com/Quotes.htm
"On every question of construction (of the meaning of the Constitution), let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and, instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed".
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p 322.

Anon: I loved your quote about the new interpretation: So who will protect us from the interpreters?

Makeshift: I don't believe that I am overthinking your point. Your focus on those ammendments validates the fact that when there were enough people who decided that the foundational document of the US needed to be changed, they did it. They were able to accomodate the changes in cultural and societal morays into the rules that governed how the government works. When this happens; all is well and good: the process worked.

However, we now have the situation where the court's interpretation are driving culture and society. The US was made neither republic, nor federation, nor democracy; but a governmental system composed of all three, held in tension with competing checks and balances. When the court legislates from the bench, which is what this is all about; they subvert the process we have in place, whether legislative or constitutional and usurp the authority of the legislature, and the people. This is a tyranny of the minority. On some the scale is small on others the scale is large, but it is tyranny none the less.

Feb 17, 2004, 06:55 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (makeshiftpatriot,) Should the constitution even be open to these kinds of interpretations though?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Why not? It's just a piece of paper with some lofty platitudes, contradictions, and vague gibberish about giving congress and the president certain powers. In fact, I think it's time to trash it, since no one pays any attention to it (except when they want to justify kicking someone's ass, or use it as an excuse for doing whatever else they want to do). In fact, most people use it the way Christians use the bible. They interpret it to mean whatever they want it to mean. Why not just admit you want to do something and do it? What purpose is served by claiming it's "constitutional"? --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 18, 2004, 06:39 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (roxdog,) Bush has stated, " There should be limits to freedom"...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Although I'm not a supporter of Bush, I must say I hate it when people quote out of context. :rolleyes: War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 18, 2004, 07:14 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) This is FUNNY! A contract is a piece of paper with words on it. (true) But the US makes a BIG DEAL about it being a nation of laws and not a nation of men.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's just propaganda. Don't believe it. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) The Unanimous Declaration (aka: Declaration of Independence) and the Constitution serve as the foundational documents for our system of government. A society can only stand as long as it treats those pieces of paper with respect.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The Declaration of Independence said essentially that when the government does stuff we don't like, we have a duty to abolish or overthrow it, violently if necessary. The constitution superseded that with "Congress shall have Power To . . .suppress Insurrections." </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) The only way to consistently interpret a foundational document is to interpret it in light of what the writers said it meant.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Why? Why is that the only way? In whose judgment? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) In the case of the Constitution, there are a plethora of documents depicting exactly what the writers meant. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, documents by Jefferson, Madison, and others. However, at times by accident, and times by design, both Republicans and Democrats have filled the court(s) with activists willing to “interpret” the constitution to say whatever they wanted it to say. This is a very convenient short cut to getting what you want: Abortion, social programs, wealth re-distribution schemes, gay “marriage”, etc.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The founders are all dead. Why should we the living be bound by their ideas, if we have come to believe that some of their ideas were flat wrong? And why shouldn't we get what we want? What's wrong with what you want? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) So now to justify this behavior, we have a new invention which makeshiftpatriot elucidates: “We're always told that the constitution is always open to new interpretation, and this allows for the basic principles of the united states to be applied to all the new situations that arise in our culture.” This is a false argument that can be demonstrated in the following situation.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It's irrelevant. The consitution is just a piece of paper on which some long-dead wig-wearin' honkies scribbled some lofty prose. It only means what you think it means, nothing more, nothing less. Why should anyone be expected to bow to your interpretation of it, or anyone else's? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) The constitution is no different. It serves as a [1]FIXED reference or it serves [2]no basis of law.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I pick #2. It serves no basis of law. It's a friggen' piece of paper, for Chrissake. It can't enforce jack squat without a real human being with a gun in front of it, and that human being is going to interpret it to suit his needs, not that of people who aren't around anymore. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) If the courts really come up with a novel situation, then they should of course rule as close to the original intent of the framers. But more often than not, they now use their power to create law in line with their own desires.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Why shouldn't they? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) This is not rule of law, but is instead a government ruled by a high council of 9, unaccountable to anyone but their own conscience, should they bother to have one.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's true, and that's the way the constitution set it up. "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution . . ." Nowhere does it say, "unless the president, or congress, or the people disagree with their judgment." All it requires of them is "good Behavior." </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) If you don’t like what the constitution says however, the framers provided a mechanism for modifying the constitution. That is of course, the amendment process.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What about the Declaration of Independence? It says we can abolish it. You can't have a society if you don't respect the Declaration, you said. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) But it’s hard to pass an amendment and so easy to just ignore the law. To quote Pres. Clinton’s aid Paul Begala: “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty cool.” And if you recognize that Begala was speaking of executive orders and not the constitution and say “Hey that’s not what he meant!” That’s my point exactly. Edge<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You can see that the guys in power don't give a crap about the constitution. Why do you? --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 18, 2004, 12:18 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Edge Molten Ash Posts: 76	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) This is FUNNY! A contract is a piece of paper with words on it. (true) But the US makes a BIG DEAL about it being a nation of laws and not a nation of men.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's just propaganda. Don't believe it.</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) This is not rule of law, but is instead a government ruled by a high council of 9, unaccountable to anyone but their own conscience, should they bother to have one.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's true, and that's the way the constitution set it up. "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution . . ." Nowhere does it say, "unless the president, or congress, or the people disagree with their judgment." All it requires of them is "good Behavior." You can see that the guys in power don't give a crap about the constitution. Why do you? --Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Because I value liberty. By your own admission (and I do appreciate your sarcasm; one of my gifts as well), the alternative to interpreting the constitution according to it's original intent, is to render this not a nation of laws, but of judicial fiat. Judicial fiat that has allowed wealth redistribution schemes, the elimination of the respect for private property rights, and mandated a disrespect of life. As you quote, the supreme court, vested with the judicial power, [emphasis mine] should be the final check on both legislative and administrative action, not the main instigator in the decline of liberty. The fact that the court has for the most part abandoned it's responsibility to show restraint, (not good behavior at all), does not mean that I need to abandon my advocay of liberty.

Feb 18, 2004, 03:07 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) Because I value liberty. By your own admission (and I do appreciate your sarcasm; one of my gifts as well), the alternative to interpreting the constitution according to it's original intent, is to render this not a nation of laws, but of judicial fiat. Judicial fiat that has allowed wealth redistribution schemes, the elimination of the respect for private property rights, and mandated a disrespect of life. As you quote, the supreme court, vested with the judicial power, [emphasis mine] should be the final check on both legislative and administrative action, not the main instigator in the decline of liberty. The fact that the court has for the most part abandoned it's responsibility to show restraint, (not good behavior at all), does not mean that I need to abandon my advocay of liberty.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> And by your own admission, the constitution did nothing to prevent all that, so it obviously doesn't work. I advocate liberty, too. That's why I reject the idea that politicians can have the power to rule and rob just because a piece of paper says so. --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 17, 2004, 03:15 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
bmaestro Molten Ash Posts: 61	We're always told that the constitution is always open to new interpretation, and this allows for the basic principles of the united states to be applied to all the new situations that arise in our culture. However, its possible that the document is too maliable, in that its so easily seen in a different way that it can be exploited by those who see a way to personally gain from it. In some ways it regulates the balance of power, and in other ways it can be exploited to shift that balance. Just think of bush preaching freedom, which is the basis of the constitution, while shifting popular interpretations of the freedoms set forth by the document. Thoughts? -b

Feb 17, 2004, 03:29 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	Bush has stated, " There should be limits to freedom"...

Feb 17, 2004, 03:44 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
bmaestro Molten Ash Posts: 61	thats just another interpretation of the document though, just asking to what extent do these freedoms apply? Should the constitution even be open to these kinds of interpretations though? When bush says there should be limits to freedom, he's basically saying that he sees the freedoms in the constitution as guidelines. others could see them as rules that must by respected. What do you all think? Should there be some definite guide of how to interpret the constitution that will keep it free from exploitation?

Feb 17, 2004, 11:02 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Edge Molten Ash Posts: 76	This is FUNNY! A contract is a piece of paper with words on it. (true) But the US makes a BIG DEAL about it being a nation of laws and not a nation of men. The Unanimous Declaration (aka: Declaration of Independence) and the Constitution serve as the foundational documents for our system of government. A society can only stand as long as it treats those pieces of paper with respect. The only way to consistently interpret a foundational document is to interpret it in light of what the writers said it meant. In the case of the Constitution, there are a plethora of documents depicting exactly what the writers meant. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, documents by Jefferson, Madison, and others. However, at times by accident, and times by design, both Republicans and Democrats have filled the court(s) with activists willing to “interpret” the constitution to say whatever they wanted it to say. This is a very convenient short cut to getting what you want: Abortion, social programs, wealth re-distribution schemes, gay “marriage”, etc. So now to justify this behavior, we have a new invention which makeshiftpatriot elucidates: “We're always told that the constitution is always open to new interpretation, and this allows for the basic principles of the united states to be applied to all the new situations that arise in our culture.” This is a false argument that can be demonstrated in the following situation. Let us suppose that you entered into a contract with another party to build your house. At some point in the performance of the contract, the other party decided that they wanted to finish your house with wire frame and paper mache’ instead of brick, wood, and siding. But the other party went to a judge and said that they should be able to change the terms of the original contract and you should just learn to like paper mache’. The judge could do two things, he could say that the contract is a living, breathing document and allow the contractor to finish the house the way they want, or they could decide that a contract is a contract and that the contractor needs to either abide by the contract or deal with the consequences. I would expect that you would want that contact enforced according to the terms that YOU had negotiated with the other party. Ie: your original intent. The constitution is no different. It serves as a FIXED reference or it serves no basis of law. If the courts really come up with a novel situation, then they should of course rule as close to the original intent of the framers. But more often than not, they now use their power to create law in line with their own desires. This is not rule of law, but is instead a government ruled by a high council of 9, unaccountable to anyone but their own conscience, should they bother to have one. If you don’t like what the constitution says however, the framers provided a mechanism for modifying the constitution. That is of course, the amendment process. But it’s hard to pass an amendment and so easy to just ignore the law. To quote Pres. Clinton’s aid Paul Begala: “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty cool.” And if you recognize that Begala was speaking of executive orders and not the constitution and say “Hey that’s not what he meant!” That’s my point exactly. Edge

Feb 18, 2004, 01:57 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
james? Molten Ash Location: Minnesota Posts: 84	I really don't think the constitution should be open to interpretation. However, I think I may agree with Sneeb that we should just scrap it or something... I mean, it's not flawless. Wasn't the fucking three-fifths comprimise originally included? Anyone wanting to manipulate the freedoms it awards us could argue it's outdatedness right there.

Feb 18, 2004, 02:41 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
dotComa Guest Posts: n/a	Oh the need for lawyers..they'll never go away because of how flexible a document we have. Nevertheless, it's the best we've come up with so far

Feb 18, 2004, 07:38 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
bmaestro Molten Ash Posts: 61	The constitution can't go by a consistant interpretation through time. If you view it to be exactly how the writers intended, you may as well take into consideration that the writer, having been persecuted for their form of christianity in europe, wrote in the freedom of religion clause basically to say you can practice whatever sect of christianity you want without fear of persecution. Essentially if we still saw freedom of religion this way, we'd be living in the stone age when it came to social equality. The document has to be subject to new interpretation or culture will get stagnant. Its as simple as that. B

Feb 19, 2004, 01:08 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	reinterpret and change the meanings... right to privacy? which ammendment is that? this interpretation of the seperate but equal clause clearly shows that you were born to be a slave and this interpretation of the 16th ammendment says that only you pay taxes... it means this... it means that... it means nothing... hold on to your guns "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 19, 2004, 01:23 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
Edge Molten Ash Posts: 76	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (makeshiftpatriot,) The constitution can't go by a consistant interpretation through time. If you view it to be exactly how the writers intended, you may as well take into consideration that the writer, having been persecuted for their form of christianity in europe, wrote in the freedom of religion clause basically to say you can practice whatever sect of christianity you want without fear of persecution. Essentially if we still saw freedom of religion this way, we'd be living in the stone age when it came to social equality. The document has to be subject to new interpretation or culture will get stagnant. Its as simple as that. B<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Not really. The majority of the states had official churches (Christian denominations) This still allowed the fledgling US to have the greatest religious freedom in the history of the world. This was because the Christians who founded these states believed that matters of faith were individual and that as such, you were either (depending upon your denomination) unconditionally chosen by God, or were autonomous in your choice. In both cases, forceable conversion is an impossibility. (A few radicals and waco's not withstanding). That was why the first ammendment begins with Congress shall make no law. As to your point about the need for continuous reinterpretation. I would would love to see that point defended from a consistent logical basis. Give it a shot. You could be the first! It is the willingness of people to yield willy-nilly to the whims of personal agenda, twisting the intent of a document expressly designed to limit the bounds of government, into a document that now, contrary to it's very purpose, is used to expand the power of the state and to the ruin of individual liberty. In the words of Samuel Clemens: "No man's life or liberty is safe while congress is in session." He missed two other branches of government. Or in the words of Samuel Adams "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue." My anarchist neighbors like Jackney Sneeb have a point in that this experiment of a constitutional democratic representative republic, has been a failure at securing liberty, and only a moderate success at retarding it's decay. It does have the benefit however, of preserving liberty longer than any other governmental system, including anarchy. (For purposes of argument, I'll describe anarchy as a system of self-government. For those of you who disagree, and you know who you are, start a new topic. )

Feb 19, 2004, 05:12 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
bmaestro Molten Ash Posts: 61	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by As to your point about the need for continuous reinterpretation. I would would love to see that point defended from a consistent logical basis. Give it a shot. You could be the first!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> i think you're overthinking my point. I'm simply saying that our culture is remarkably differrent than it was when the constitution was written. women can vote, blacks can vote, neither of which were considered voting citizens at the constitutions inception. Of course these were actual amendments to the document, but they also imply that we need to look at the other freedoms originally granted to "citizens," and see if they too need to apply to our current definition of citizen. Its that simple. If we don't reinterpret it in light of changes in the culture, it becomes an oppressive document, working against the cultural forces of change, so culture gets stagnant. -B

Feb 19, 2004, 05:44 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
AnonT Molten Ash Location: Middle of nowhere, Nebraska Posts: 130	"The government was set to protect man from criminals and the Constitution was written to protect man from government." - Ayn Rand When the Constitution stops meeting it's purpose of protecting us from governmental tyranny, it's time for a new interpretation.

Feb 19, 2004, 06:27 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
Edge Molten Ash Posts: 76	I found this quote today. I shamlessly stole it from: http://www.derbyfals.com/Quotes.htm "On every question of construction (of the meaning of the Constitution), let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and, instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed". Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p 322. Anon: I loved your quote about the new interpretation: So who will protect us from the interpreters? Makeshift: I don't believe that I am overthinking your point. Your focus on those ammendments validates the fact that when there were enough people who decided that the foundational document of the US needed to be changed, they did it. They were able to accomodate the changes in cultural and societal morays into the rules that governed how the government works. When this happens; all is well and good: the process worked. However, we now have the situation where the court's interpretation are driving culture and society. The US was made neither republic, nor federation, nor democracy; but a governmental system composed of all three, held in tension with competing checks and balances. When the court legislates from the bench, which is what this is all about; they subvert the process we have in place, whether legislative or constitutional and usurp the authority of the legislature, and the people. This is a tyranny of the minority. On some the scale is small on others the scale is large, but it is tyranny none the less.