In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Literal versus Living Constitution

COBmmcmssCOBmmcmss Member Posts: 1,174 ✭✭✭✭✭
So is the U.S. Constitution a "living document" or should it be read exactly as written and applied by the court?

Comments

  • wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by COBmmcmss
    So is the U.S. Constitution a "living document" or should it be read exactly as written and applied by the court?


    No, it is not a 'living' document.

    It should not only be read exactly as written, but ACCEPTED as well.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Constitution...hmmm...constitution.let me refresh my memory.


    OH, ya...the document penned by old dead white guys.THAT one.

    Should we, were we EVER able to wrench it out of the corrupted hands of the trfoxes of this country, obey and honor it as THE law of the land.AS WRITTEN.well.hell yes, we should.


    Oh..by the way. Nearly EVERY 'Court' here in America routinely IGNORES the Constitution...just as the supreme court did this last summer.
  • airmungairmung Member Posts: 579 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Amen, Highball!
  • COBmmcmssCOBmmcmss Member Posts: 1,174 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Thank heaven we at least got Chief Justice Roberts on the court. Sotamayor is nothing but an interpretist when it comes to applying constitutional grounds to anything. It's a "rule-de-jour" with her.

    If it weren't for Roberts, we wouldn't have won the D.C. overturn of gun ban.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote:If it weren't for Roberts, we wouldn't have won the D.C. overturn of gun ban.
    Cob, 'ol buddy...'we' DID NOT 'WIN' that case.
    It was a net loss for the Constitution and Bill of Rights...and we the people.
    Hate to break it to you this way....
  • steveaustinsteveaustin Member Posts: 852 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I gotta get in on this one. I say living. For the reason that if it is not defended, it will die. That, gentlemen, is what we are facing. A document penned so fine is just that, a document. But it will die if it is not defended. jmho. steve
  • RocklobsterRocklobster Member Posts: 7,060
    edited November -1
    Yeah, I cannot understand how a group of nine intelligent(?), well-educated people (lawyers or not) can find data in the US Constitution that makes killing unborn babies acceptable yet remain confused about the meaning of the word "infringed," plainly written there.
  • jev1969jev1969 Member Posts: 2,691
    edited November -1
    The answer to this question from Thomas Jefferson:
    "On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying to determine 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.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 22,936 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The Constitution is a Living Document that should be taken literally and as written. I will not concede the concept of living to those who would distort the meaning.[:)]
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote: McManus
    Advanced Member



    USA
    6350 Posts
    Posted - 11/30/2009 : 1:25:17 PM

    The Constitution is a Living Document that should be taken literally and as written. I will not concede the concept of living to those who would distort the meaning.
    Don ;
    Thanks much for bringing to the surface something that has been bothering me.
    Why SHOULD we allow pizant slimy cowards to define the terms for us ? As long as those documents are held dear by ONE PERSON...they are a living , breathing testimony to courage, honor, and freedom.
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    Hijacking terms to change meaning, or cause de-meaning is old hat with our puke (non)representatives.
  • COBmmcmssCOBmmcmss Member Posts: 1,174 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by TommyLaw9
    Hello all, new here, first post.

    Something for you gentlemen to chew on in relation to this topic.

    The Constitution is an ambiguous document. This was done on purpose, and that is where the real beauty rests. Of course it is a living document, that is what the framers wholly intended when they drafted and ratified It. That is why the Constitutional deliberations were never recorded. If we interpreted the Constitution as it was written, exactly, I doubt the country would be half of what it was today. The language used was meant to spark debate and battles, remember that. Those men had the incredible foresight to write words on a piece of paper that has shaped a country through the subjective interpretation of the elected leaders of this country. We elect them, they interpret. If the Constitution were a finite, end all document there would be loops holes found and exploited and no way to seal them up.

    Sorry if this is a little incoherent, but it's finals and my brain is fried. I had to add my 2-cents to this issue which i feel very strongly about. but hey, that's what makes this country great.

    *edit*

    Thomas Jefferson was a federalist who believed in a much stronger federal government...I'm sure that is something most of you can find disagreement with. Be careful with the TJ quotes, context is everything with that man.


    Tommy, I'm sorry but you're out of your league here. Saying things like, "...Jefferson was a Federalist..." is so inherently incorrect I'd hate to be your professor and have to read this on your final paper.

    Please do yourself a favor and go back and review the members of the Federalist party from 1778 to 1792. You'll find names such as John Jay, Madison, Hamilton... but no where will you find Jefferson. If you wish to debate this issue, please review core documents first and question anyone's interpretation of them. I will be happy to provide any of them to you at your leisure. I keep a copy of precedent setting cases, all of the Federalist papers, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, each of the state constitutions or charters (as appropriate) on my I-phone. I can and will provide you with course material for Government 400 classes or Constitutional Law classes should you desire. Education is valuable, but only if you're getting factual information and not indoctrination.

    You are correct in my humble opinion about the Constitution being ambiguous on many issues. However, there are many parts which are not ambiguous and have been discarded by political opinion. This too is not what our Forefathers intended.

    I look forward to your future posts and wish you better luck on your finals.

    COB, Esq.
    USN (Ret.)
    Prof. (Ret.)
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    Ouch![B)]

    I'm quite sure his professor would be proud of the young lad's position. Unfortunately.
  • RocklobsterRocklobster Member Posts: 7,060
    edited November -1
    No doubt that same academic has also informed the guy that the Founders were all a bunch of self-centered, wealthy white slave owners.
  • COBmmcmssCOBmmcmss Member Posts: 1,174 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
    Ouch![B)]

    I'm quite sure his professor would be proud of the young lad's position. Unfortunately.


    Wolf,

    It was my experience that the majority of my fellow members of academia were dyed in the wool hard core liberals with agendas to their instruction.

    I give Tommy credit for looking beyond...

    COB
  • COBmmcmssCOBmmcmss Member Posts: 1,174 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by TommyLaw9
    ah bleen i meant madison, not TJ. like i said my brain is fried.

    self-centered? no
    slave-owning? yes


    maybe in 100 years someone will look back at a great figure in our era and say "but he was a self-centered anti-gay marriage supporter!" and all of the silver-wearing, flying-car driving future peoples will gasp with horror.

    can't wait till next semester for con-law 2, finally talk about some 2nd amendment issues...so tired of due process and equal protection. bleh.


    Tommy,

    Watch out for the "...interstate commerce..." clause in the Constitution. See how they present it. It is this small section of words that were penned by Madison that accounts for SO much of the creeping Federalism and was even brandished by the plague of Pelosi as what gave her the authority to mandate the healthcare on us the citizens even though we (the ones she's supposed to represent) are telling her NO!.

    Additionally, ask yourself this; since the founding fathers had no concept of anything like a computer OR a machine gun - then how does the 4th Amendment apply to search and seizure of a computer but the 2nd Amendment does not apply to machine guns or the infamous "assault" rifles?

    Con-Law can be so much fun!!!

    Lots of luck on your finals.

    COB
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 22,936 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by TommyLaw9
    judicial interpretation, that is what it is all about. You think that those men actually thought that their society was the pinnacle of human achievement? of course not and they allowed for evolution of ideas and technologies through the language they chose in that document.
    The bedrock is firm, however, and unchanging. Well it should be unchanging.

    Judicial interpretation is an anathema to Constitutional Governance. The evolution of the Document is provided for in Article 5 and nowhere else. Even there, the Founders demonstrate the unchanging and authoritative nature of the Constitution by proscribing limits to what even that required super-majority can do.

    You are correct it that the Constitution allows for the evolution of ideas and technology. It does not allow for, nor does it permit the evolution of the ideas expressed within itself.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • atticus69atticus69 Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Tommy,

    Before your profs ruin your mind with distorted history, acquire and read the book, "The 5000 Year Leap" it will give you an historically accurate picture of the founders, the constitution and its proper interpretation.

    As a Lawyer, judge,adjunct professor and avid historian, I have found it right on target.
  • RocklobsterRocklobster Member Posts: 7,060
    edited November -1
    I'll second that recommendation. While you're at the bookstore, also throw a copy of "American Progressivism" by Ronald J. Pestritto, into your basket.
  • huntfreakhuntfreak Member Posts: 7 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Rocklobster,

    Earlier in the forum you mentioned that you found it odd for those nine "intelligent" people to find it lawful to kill innocent unborn babies and yet still be confused by the meaning of the word "infringed".

    Here is some more food for thought that plas right into your opinion as well (if my understanding of your opinion is correct.)

    Isn't it funny that our judicial system (well a few within it) have created laws and such then twisted the words of our contsitution to make those laws etc. lawful?

    Like many have already said, the constitution is a LIVING document that was meant to keep our country sound. Although it struck much debate then and still does now, the deeper meaning is that of truth and honor. So why aren't laws being created based on what the constitution already says.

    In short. The constitution is a living document that SHOULD be active in every decision this country makes. Not twisted to fit what the "nine intelligent" people think it should be.
Sign In or Register to comment.